1. page 1
    2. page 2
    3. page 3
    4. page 4
    5. page 5
    6. page 6
    7. page 7
    8. page 8
    9. page 9
    10. page 10
    11. page 11
    12. page 12
    13. page 13
    14. page 14
    15. page 15
    16. page 16
    17. page 17
    18. page 18
    19. page 19
    20. page 20
    21. page 21
    22. page 22
    23. page 23
    24. page 24
    25. page 25
    26. page 26
    27. page 27
    28. page 28
    29. page 29
    30. page 30
    31. page 31
    32. page 32
    33. page 33
    34. page 34
    35. page 35
    36. page 36
    37. page 37
    38. page 38
    39. page 39
    40. page 40
    41. page 41
    42. page 42
    43. page 43
    44. page 44
    45. page 45
    46. page 46
    47. page 47
    48. page 48
    49. page 49
    50. page 50
    51. page 51
    52. page 52
    53. page 53
    54. page 54
    55. page 55
    56. page 56
    57. page 57
    58. page 58
    59. page 59
    60. page 60
    61. page 61
    62. page 62
    63. page 63
    64. page 64
    65. page 65
    66. page 66
    67. page 67
    68. page 68
    69. page 69
    70. page 70
    71. page 71
    72. page 72
    73. page 73
    74. page 74
    75. page 75
    76. page 76
    77. page 77
    78. page 78
    79. page 79
    80. page 80
    81. page 81
    82. page 82
    83. page 83
    84. page 84
    85. page 85
    86. page 86
    87. page 87
    88. page 88
    89. page 89
    90. page 90
    91. page 91
    92. page 92
    93. page 93
    94. page 94
    95. page 95
    96. page 96
    97. page 97
    98. page 98
    99. page 99
    100. page 100
    101. page 101
    102. page 102
    103. page 103
    104. page 104
    105. page 105
    106. page 106
    107. page 107
    108. page 108
    109. page 109
    110. page 110
    111. page 111
    112. page 112
    113. page 113
    114. page 114
    115. page 115
    116. page 116
    117. page 117
    118. page 118
    119. page 119
    120. page 120
    121. page 121
    122. page 122
    123. page 123
    124. page 124
    125. page 125
    126. page 126
    127. page 127
    128. page 128
    129. page 129
    130. page 130
    131. page 131
    132. page 132
    133. page 133
    134. page 134
    135. page 135
    136. page 136
    137. page 137
    138. page 138
    139. page 139
    140. page 140
    141. page 141
    142. page 142
    143. page 143
    144. page 144
    145. page 145
    146. page 146
    147. page 147
    148. page 148
    149. page 149
    150. page 150
    151. page 151
    152. page 152
    153. page 153
    154. page 154
    155. page 155
    156. page 156
    157. page 157
    158. page 158
    159. page 159
    160. page 160
    161. page 161
    162. page 162
    163. page 163
    164. page 164
    165. page 165
    166. page 166
    167. page 167
    168. page 168
    169. page 169
    170. page 170
    171. page 171
    172. page 172
    173. page 173
    174. page 174
    175. page 175
    176. page 176
    177. page 177
    178. page 178
    179. page 179
    180. page 180
    181. page 181
    182. page 182
    183. page 183
    184. page 184
    185. page 185
    186. page 186
    187. page 187
    188. page 188
    189. page 189
    190. page 190
    191. page 191
    192. page 192
    193. page 193
    194. page 194
    195. page 195
    196. page 196
    197. page 197
    198. page 198
    199. page 199
    200. page 200
    201. page 201
    202. page 202
    203. page 203
    204. page 204
    205. page 205
    206. page 206
    207. page 207
    208. page 208
    209. page 209
    210. page 210
    211. page 211
    212. page 212
    213. page 213
    214. page 214
    215. page 215
    216. page 216
    217. page 217
    218. page 218
    219. page 219
    220. page 220
    221. page 221
    222. page 222
    223. page 223
    224. page 224
    225. page 225
    226. page 226
    227. page 227
    228. page 228
    229. page 229
    230. page 230
    231. page 231
    232. page 232
    233. page 233
    234. page 234
    235. page 235
    236. page 236
    237. page 237
    238. page 238
    239. page 239
    240. page 240
    241. page 241
    242. page 242
    243. page 243
    244. page 244
    245. page 245
    246. page 246
    247. page 247
    248. page 248
    249. page 249
    250. page 250
    251. page 251
    252. page 252
    253. page 253
    254. page 254
    255. page 255
    256. page 256
    257. page 257
    258. page 258
    259. page 259
    260. page 260
    261. page 261
    262. page 262
    263. page 263
    264. page 264
    265. page 265
    266. page 266
    267. page 267
    268. page 268
    269. page 269
    270. page 270
    271. page 271
    272. page 272
    273. page 273
    274. page 274
    275. page 275
    276. page 276
    277. page 277
    278. page 278
    279. page 279
    280. page 280
    281. page 281
    282. page 282
    283. page 283
    284. page 284
    285. page 285
    286. page 286
    287. page 287
    288. page 288
    289. page 289
    290. page 290
    291. page 291
    292. page 292
    293. page 293
    294. page 294
    295. page 295
    296. page 296
    297. page 297
    298. page 298
    299. page 299
    300. page 300
    301. page 301
    302. page 302
    303. page 303
    304. page 304
    305. page 305
    306. page 306
    307. page 307
    308. page 308
    309. page 309
    310. page 310
    311. page 311
    312. page 312
    313. page 313
    314. page 314
    315. page 315
    316. page 316
    317. page 317
    318. page 318
    319. page 319
    320. page 320
    321. page 321
    322. page 322
    323. page 323
    324. page 324
    325. page 325
    326. page 326
    327. page 327
    328. page 328
    329. page 329
    330. page 330
    331. page 331
    332. page 332
    333. page 333
    334. page 334
    335. page 335
    336. page 336
    337. page 337
    338. page 338
    339. page 339
    340. page 340
    341. page 341
    342. page 342
    343. page 343
    344. page 344
    345. page 345
    346. page 346
    347. page 347
    348. page 348
    349. page 349
    350. page 350
    351. page 351
    352. page 352
    353. page 353
    354. page 354
    355. page 355
    356. page 356
    357. page 357
    358. page 358
    359. page 359
    360. page 360
    361. page 361
    362. page 362
    363. page 363
    364. page 364
    365. page 365
    366. page 366
    367. page 367
    368. page 368
    369. page 369
    370. page 370
    371. page 371
    372. page 372
    373. page 373
    374. page 374
    375. page 375
    376. page 376
    377. page 377
    378. page 378
    379. page 379
    380. page 380
    381. page 381
    382. page 382
    383. page 383
    384. page 384
    385. page 385
    386. page 386
    387. page 387
    388. page 388
    389. page 389
    390. page 390
    391. page 391
    392. page 392
    393. page 393
    394. page 394
    395. page 395
    396. page 396
    397. page 397
    398. page 398
    399. page 399
    400. page 400
    401. page 401
    402. page 402
    403. page 403
    404. page 404
    405. page 405
    406. page 406
    407. page 407
    408. page 408
    409. page 409

 
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
IN THE MATTER OF:
WA'T'ER QUALI'T'Y STANDARDS AND
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS FOR THE
CHICAGO AREA WATERWAY SYSTEM
AND THE LOWER DES PLAINES RIVER:
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO 35 Ill.
Adm. Code Parts 301, 302, 303 and 304
R08-9
(Rulemaking
- Water)
PRE-FILED TESTIMONY OF CHARLES P. GERBA
My name is Charles P. Gerba. I earned a Bachelor of Science degree from Arizona State
University in 1969, and a Ph.D. from the University of Miami, Florida in 1973. Both of my
degrees are in Microbiology.
I was a postdoctoral research
follow and Assistant Professor of
Environmental Virology at Baylor College of Medicine in the Department of Virology and
Epidemiology from 1973 through 1981. I am currently Professor of Environmental Microbiology
in the Departments of Microbiology and Immunology; Soil, Water, and Environmental Science;
and Epidemiology and Biostatistics at the University of Arizona in Tucson, Arizona. I have
authored more than 500 articles including several books in environmental microbiology and
pollution science. I actively conduct research on the development of new disinfectants, new
methods for the detection of enteric pathogens in the environment, occurrence and fate of
pathogens in the environment, fate of pathogens during wastewater reuse and land application of
biosolids, microbiology of domestic environments and microbial risk assessment.
For the last three years, I have participated in the District's Microbial Risk Assessment
(MRA) Study as a member of the Geosyntec Team Senior Advisory Committee. In that role, I
have worked closely with the project team providing direction and peer review in all aspects of
the MRA Study, which evaluated the human health impacts of disinfection versus non
disinfection at the District's three largest water reclamation plants all of which discharge into the

 
Chicago Area Waterway System (CAWS). In addition, at the onset of the study 1 provided on-
site training to the District personnel on sample collection procedures.
The MRA study focused on microorganisms typically present in the feces of humans and
other warm-blooded animals as indicators of fecal pollution. including the following
indicators
and pathogens:
o
Lnteric viruses: i) total culturable viruses, (ii) viable adenovirus; and (iii)
norovirus
o Infectious Cryptosporidiuin and viable Giardia lanablia
n
Salmonella spp.
o I'seudomonas aerugin.osa
0 P'ecal coliforrns
o
E. coli
o
Enterococei
This list was taken to be representatives of the likely universe of disease causing
organisms and indicators that are used to assess fecal contamination. The indicators selected are
those which have been traditionally used and those recommended by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency and the World Health Organization for assessment of
recreational water quality (NRC, 2000.
Sahnonella
was also selected as it is one of the more
hardy enteric bacterial pathogens and can always be found in wastewater and would be expected
to be representative of the risks from other enteric bacterial pathogens.
Pseudornonas aerugiInoso
was selected because it can be commonly isolated from sewage and causes recreationally
associated eye, skin and ear infections (Hunter, 1997). Decal coliforms, E.
soli,
enterococei
were included in the list of organisms studied because of its use as an indicator recreational water
2

 
quality (NRC, 2004). The test did not detect pathogenic E,
coh,
Non-pathogenic forms of
E. soli
occur in much greater concentration than pathogenic forms in wastewater and their behavior
would be expected to be similar to the pathogenic strains of E.
soli
(Nwachuku and Gerba,
2008).
Cr.) ptosporidiutn
is the protozoan pathogen most commonly associated with recreational
waterborne disease outbreaks in the United States today (Dziuban et al., 2006).
Giardia
is also
associated with recreational water borne disease outbreaks (Dziuban et al., 2006). Total
culturable virus assays have been used by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency in the
Information Collection to assess risks from enteric viruses in water and will largely detect the
enteroviruses (Coxsackie, echo,), one is of the most common groups of enteric viruses found in
wastewater. Norovirus and adenovirus are the viruses most commonly associated with
recreational waterborne disease; accounting for more than 90% of all reported outbreaks of
viruses associated with recreational water. Norovirus is the most common cause of viral diarrhea
in the United States. Adenoviruses are a cause of car, nose throat and respiratory infections
associated with recreational waters. They are also the second leading cause of viral diarrhea in
children. Adenoviruses have been detected in greater concentration in wastewater than any other
enteric virus, thus they may pose the greatest risk of infection in recreational waters of any of
enteric pathogen (Gerba, 2008). Enteric viruses and the protozoan parasites were included in this
study because they have a much lower infectious dose than the bacteria (i.e. takes fewer to cause
infection) and they survive much longer in surface waters than the enteric bacteria pathogens.
I
direct the operation of the Environmental Virology Laboratory, Department of Soil,
Water and Environmental Science at the University of Arizona that performed the analysis of
adenovirus and norovirus for this study using University of Arizona Standard Operating
Procedures (SOPS). There are no U.S.EPA-approved methods for norovirus. The University of
3

 
Arizona method estimates the virus concentration
,
but does not determine or confirm viability or
infectivity
.
Thus, this method is a conservative estimate of the nunnber of infectious virus
present in the water i.e. it detects both non-infectious
(
dead) and infectious viruses
(live).
Adenoviruses are believed to be € ore common in sewage than enteroviruses
,
and have been a
cause of recreational waterborne illness (Gerba, 2007
).
There are no U.S.EPA-approved
methods for adenovirus. A University of Arizona SOP was used for the analysis of adenovirus
that includes cell culture and DNA confirmation.
'T'he occurrence and concentration of protozoan parasites, total culturable viruses,
adenoviruses and norovirus were generally equal to or lower than observed in other studies by
me and others on wastewater discharges and surface waters in general during dry weather
conditions
(
Gerba, 2008
;
Rodriquez et al., 2008; Rose et al., 1988, 1991,1996). These studies
involved both disinfected and non-disinfected treated wastewater, and streams into which they
were discharged. Some of these studies were conducted in Europe where disinfection of treated
wastewater discharges is usually not practiced
.
The concentration
of
Cryptosporidiuln
was lower
than observed in studies in which I have been involved in previously and other studies reported
in the scientific literature in which there where no known sewage discharges (Rose et al.,
1988;1991
)
This is because cattle and other animals can be greater source of
Cryptosporidizan
in
surface waters than sewage discharges
.
The
Giar
dia
was also generally lower than that observed
in several other sewage discharges from previous studies conducted by me and reported in the
literature by others
(
Rose ct al., 1996
;
Smith and Grimason
, 2003
).
These studies were
conducted in various locations across the United States. The total culturable viruses were also
lower than observed in a study of a recreational stream in Arizona conducted by my laboratory
in which bathers were the only source
(
Rose at al., 1987).
4

 
It is my expert opinion that decisions regarding the need for effluent disinfection must be
made on a site-specific basis. Disinfection is warranted in situations where direct human contact
in the in-imediate vicinity of an outfall is possible or where effluent is discharged to areas
involving; the production of human food. Disinfection is warranted in situations where its
application leads to a reduction in the risk of disease transmission. As illustrated by post-
disinfection regrowth of bacteria, relatively poor virucidal behavior, and generation of persistent
disinfection by-products (DBl's), it is not clear that wastewater disinfection always yields
improved effluent or receiving water quality.
There is a great variability in the performance and uncertainty in the efficacy of
disinfection.
There are many unanswered questions with respect to disinfection efficiency data
for microbial indicators and pathogens. The available data for the evaluation of disinfection
technologies are bench-scale or pilot-scale experiments and not full-scale operations. Therefore,
it is uncertain if disinfection designed to remove indicators can be effective in the removal of
pathogens and in the reduction of pathogen risks. In applying any disinfectant, it is important to
strike a balance between risks associated with microbial pathogens and those associated with
DBPs. DBI's are persistent chemicals, some of which have relevant toxicological characteristics.
The inventory of DBPs that have the potential to cause adverse health effects is large and highly
variable among Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) effluents. The human health effects
associated with chemical contaminants that are influenced or produced as a result of disinfection
operations tend to be chronic in nature. Therefore, the development of a risk assessment for
exposure to chemical constituents, including DBPs, is far more complex than the microbial risk
assessment, Risk assessments of wastewater disinfection should consider microbial and
chemical quality.
5

 
Respeglirlly
Submitted,
By.,
Charles P. Gerha

 
Testimony Attachments
1.
Curriculum
Vitae of Dr.
Charles Gerba.
2.
Dry and Wet Weather Risk Assess
m
ent of Human Health Impacts of Disinfection vs.
No Disinfection of the Chicago Area Waterways
System (CWA)
References
Dziuban et al. 2006. Surveillance of waterborne disease outbreaks associated with recreational
water- United States, 2003-2004. MMWR 55(SS12):1-24.
Gerba, C.
P. 2008. Virus occurrence and survival in the environmental waters. In: Human
Viruses in
Water.
A. Bosch, ed
.
pp. 91-108. Elsevier
,
Amsterdam.
Hunter
,
P. H. 1907. Waterborne
Disease
. Wiley, New York.
NRC. National Research Council. 2004. Indicators and
Waterborne Pathogens. National
Academies Press. Washington, DC.
Nwachuku, N. and C. P. Gerba. 2005. Occurrence and persistence of
Escherichia coh
0157:H7
in water. Rev. Environ. Sci. Biotechnol. 7:267-273.
Rodriquez, R. A., P. M. Gundy and C. P. Gerba. 2008. Comparison of BGM and PLC/PRC/5 cell
lines for total culturable viral assay of treated sewage. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 74:2583-2587.
Rose, J.B., R.L. Mullinax, S.N, Singh, M.V. Yates, and C. P. Gerba. 1987.
Occurrence of
rotaviruses and enteroviruses in recreational waters of Oak Creek, Arizona. Water Research
21:1375-1381.
Rose, J.B., C.P. Gerba and W. Jakubowski. 1991. Survey of potable water supplies for
Cryptosporidiuln
and
Giardia.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 25:1393-1400.
Rose, J. B., L. J
.
Dickson, S. R. Farrah and R. P. Carnahan
.
1996.Rcrnoval of pathogenic and
indicator
rnicrooganisrns
by full-scale water
reclamation
facility.
Water Res. 30:2785-2797.
Smith, I-1.
V. and A. M. Grimason. 2003. Giardia and Cryptosporidiurn. In: The Handbook of
Water and Wastewater Microbiology. D. Mara and N. Horan. Pp. 695-756.Elaevier, London.
6

 
Attac
h
ment
1

 
CURRICULUM VITAE
of
CHARLL
+'
S PETER GERBA
EDUCA'T'ION AND DEGREES
Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona
B. S., Microbiology
University of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida
Ph.D., Microbiology
POSITIONS
Postdoctoral Fellow, Department of Virology and Epidemiology,
Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas 77030
Assistant Professor of Environmental Virology, Department of
Virology and Epidemiology, Baylor College of Medicine,
Houston, Texas 77030
Adjunct Assistant Professor of Environmental
Health, University of Texas School of
Public Health, Houston, Texas 77030
Associate Professor and Professor, Department of Nutrition
and Food Science and University Department
of Microbiology and Immunology, University
of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721
Professor, Department of Soil, Water and Environmental Science
The University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona
Phone (602) 621-6906
Adjunct Professor, Department of Nutritional Sciences
The University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona
Adjunct Professor, Department of Microbiology
and lmnnunology, The University of Arizona,
Tucson, Arizona
Adjunct Professor
,
Department of
Epidemiology
and Biostatistics,
The University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona
1
June 1969
January 1973
1973
1976-1983
1981-1990
1990-
1990-
1993-2005
2000-

 
HONORS
Beta Beta Beta (biology scholastic honorary)
Epsilon Tau Lanrrbda (adult scholastic honorary:
University of Miami)
1969-1972
National Institutes of Health Postdoctoral
Traineeship
1973
Member, American Academy of Microbiology
1993
Waksman Lectureship Fellow, American Society for Microbiology
2005-2007
Listed in Who's Who in Technology Today, 1984, 1986, 1989, eds.
Listed in International Who's Who in American Education, 1992-1993, 1995, 1996-1997, eds.
Listed in Who's Who in the West, 1987-present
Listed in Who's Who in Emerging Leaders in America, 1989-1990, 1991-1992, eds.
Listed in Who's Who in the World, 1989-1995-present
Listed in American Men & Women of Science, 18th edition, 1992-1993, 1996-1997-present
Listed in Who's Who in Science and Engineering, 1992-1993, 1996-1997, eds.
Listed in Who's Who in America, 1994 - present
Listed in Who's Who in Medicine and Healthcare, 1997-1998-present
AWARDS
Outstanding Research Scientist Award,
College of Agriculture;, The University of Arizona
Environmental Science and Engineering Fellow,
American Association for the Advancement of Science
Tribute of Appreciation, Criteria and Standards
Division, Office of Drinking Water, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
Service Award for Public Health, Pima County
Health Department
Outstanding Tear Research Award, College of Agriculture,
The University of Arizona
Co-Recipient of Mckee Award (for outstanding contribution to groundwater protection),
Water Environmental Federation
Recipient of the A.P. Black Research Award for outstanding contributions
to
Water Science, American Water Works Association
I lonorary Lifetime Membership Award for dedicated service to the water treatn-rent
industry,
Water- Quality Association
Award of Excellence in Environmental Health for outstanding and innovative
research program, The National Association of Country and City Health Officials
Selected as one of the 21 most influential people in the water industry in the 21" century
by Water- Technology Magazine
Best Paper Published in the Journal of the American Water Works Association,
Water Resources Division
Best Paper Published in the Journal of the American Water Works Association.
Water Science and Research Division
Shah Distinguished Lectureship in Risk Assessment, Stanford University
1984
1984
1984
1984
1992
1996
1997
1998
2000
2002
2005
2005
2

 
Quentin Mces Research Award for outstanding research in applied water science
Arizona Water Pollution Control Association
2007
PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
American Society for Microbiology
American Association for the Advancement of Science
Sigma Xi
International Water Association
American Water Works Association
Society for Applied Microbiology
Society for Risk Analysis
International Association for Food Protection
ELECTED POSITIONS IN PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
Chairman-elect and Chairman, Applied and Environmental Division
of the American Society for Microbiology
1982-1984
President-elect and President, Arizona Branch
of the American Society for Microbiology
1983-1984
Councilor, Arizona Branch of the American Society
for Microbiology
1985-1986
Chairman-elect and Chairman, Applied and Environmental Division
of the American Society for Microbiology
1986-1988
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERSHIPS
Applied and Environmental Microbiology
1979-1985
CRC Critical Reviews in Environmental Control
1984-
Journal of Food Protection
1984-1990
Journal of Industrial Microbiology
1986-1989
Journal of Applied Microbiology
2000-2005
Letters in Applied Microbiology
2000-2005
Regional Editor - Journal of Water and Health
2002-
Reviews in Environmental Toxicology and Contamination
2006-
PROFESSIONALLY RELATED PUBLIC SERVICE
Member - U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Work-
shop on "Protocol Development: Criteria and
Standards for Potable Reuse and Feasible Alterna-
tives", Committee on Groundwater Criteria
Member - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Work-
shop on "Monitoring for Viruses in the Environment"
Member - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Work-
shop on "Microbial Contaminants in Drinking Water's
Member - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Work-
shop on "Land Application of Municipal Wastewater
and Sludge", Denver
1980
1980
1981
1983
3

 
Member - University Technical Advisory Committee to
the Pima County Board of Health
1982-1984
Member - Demonstration Recharge Advisory Committee,
Tucson Water, City of Tucson
1984-1987
Member - Technical Advisory Board to the Pima
County Water Hyacinth Wastewater Treatment Project
1984
Member - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Drinking Water, Workshop on Revised
Drinking Water Regulations
1985
Member - Task Force for Microbiological Water
Purifier Guide Standards and "Nesting, Office of
Drinking Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Member - Pima County Board of Health
1986-1992
Member- - Grant Review Panel, Office of Research and
Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1986-1988
Member - Drinking Water Committee, Science Advisory
Board, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Member -Task Group on Copper/Silver Ion Generators,
National Sanitation Foundation
1989-1991
Member -Technical Advisory Committee,
Soil Aquifer Treatment Facility,
Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority
1990-1992
Member Ad Hoc - FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel,
Antimicrobial Test Methodology,
Office of Pesticides, U.S.
1991-1997
Member - Task Group on Drinking Water Treatment Units
for Bacteriostatic Testing and Cyst Reduction,
National Sanitation Foundation
1991
Member - "Workshop on Drinking Water and Health in the Year 2000",
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and American Water Works
Research Foundation
1991
Member - "Workshop on Virology for the Water Supply in the Nineties",
National Institute of Public Health and Environmental Protection, The Netherlands
1991
Member - "Expert Panel on Hazards of Municipal Solid Waste Recycling,"
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1991-1992
Member - "Workshop of Research Needs in Drinking; Water Microbiology", American Water Works
Foundation
1992
Member - "Workshop on the Methodology for Deriving National Water Ambient Water Quality Criteria
for the Protection of Human Health", U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Science and `Nechnology
1992
Member - "Blue Ribbon Panel on Research needs for Ultraviolet Disinfection", State of California,
Dept, of Health Services
1993
Member - "Blue Ribbon Panel on Assessment and Acceptability of Risk", State of Calif., Dept. of Health
Services.
1993
Member - Workshop on "Research Needs in Microbial Risk Assessment", National Institute of
Public Health and Environmental Protection, The Netherlands
1992
Chairman - Microbiology Working Group "Workshop for Revision of National Guidelines for
Deriving Human Health Criteria for Surface Water", U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1992
Member - Technical Advisory Committee, Water Campus Wastewater Reuse Project,
4

 
City of Scottsdale
1992-1994
Member - Science Advisory Board, Committee on Drinking Water and Committee on Research Strategies,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1994-1999
Member - Working Group on Microbial Risk Assessment, International Life Science Institute and
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1995-
Member - Project Advisory Committee, UV Disinfection of Groundwater, American Water Works
Research Foundation
1994-1996
Member - Project Advisory Committee
National Survey of Viruses in Groundwater,
American Water Works Association
Research Foundation
1995-1999
Member - Working Group on Microbial Risk
Assessment. International Life
Science Institute, and the United States
Environmental Protection Agency
1996-2000
Member - Workshop on Managing Microbial
Risks of Potable Water in Space NASA
1997
Member - Workshop on New Microbial Indicators for
Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1998
Member - Workshop on Water and Food Pathogen
Risk Assessment, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, and the International
Life Science Institute
1999
Member - Workshop on Groundwater
Indicator Evaluation, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
1999
Member - Early Warning Monitoring to Detect
Hazardous Events in Water Supply Systems
U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Dept, of Defense
1999
Member - Susceptibility and Microbial Risk Assessment
Workshop G.W. University and the
Environmental Protection Agency
1999
Member - Mars Sample Handling Workshop, NASA
2000
Member- Research Needs for On-Site Wastewater Treatment Systems Workshop,
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
2001
Member - Recreational Water Quality Standards for Tropical Waters Workshop,
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
2001
Member-- Research Needs for Biosolids and Animal Wastes, U.S. Department of Agriculture and
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
2001
Member --Workshop on Indicators for Pathogens in Wastewater, Biosolids and Stornlwater,
Water Environment Research Foundation
2003
Member - Expert Panel to Review Centers for Disease Control
5

 
Environmental Microbiology Program
Member -- Selecting Criteria for the Candidate Contaminate List,
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
SERVICE TO THE PROFESSION
Rapporteur - International Conference on Viruses
in Water, Mexico City
Vice-Chairman - Workshop on "Viral Pollution in the
Environment", Fourth International Congress for
Virology, The Hague, Netherlands
Member - American Society for Testing Material,
subsection committee on standard methods for
detecting virus on solids and soils
Member - American Society for Testing Material,
subsection committee on standard methods for
detecting viruses in fresh and marine waters
Subcommittee on Virological Methods,
"Examination of Seawater and Shellfish", pub-
lished by the American Public Health Association
Chairman - Workshop on "Ecology of Viruses in
Water", Second International Syrnposiurn on Micro-
bial Ecology, University of Warwick, England
Session Chairman - "Distribution and Development of
Pathogens", Second International Symposium on
Microbial Ecology, University of Warwick, England
Session Chairman - International Conference on Viruses
and Wastewater Treatn-tent, University of Surrey,
England
Co-Chairman - Workshop on "Environmental Aspects of
Viral Hepatitis Transmission", International
Symposium on Viral Hepatitis, New York
Member - Session Committee, Institute of Food
Technologists
Member - Committee on Environmental Microbiology,
American Society for Microbiology
Member - Microbial Problems in Drinking Water
Committee, American Water Works Association
Co-Chairman - Round Table - Bate of Genetically
Engineered Organisms in the Environment,
American Society for Microbiology, Las Vegas
Senior Delegate - U.S. Committee of the Inter-
national Association for Water Pollution
2005
2006
1974
1978
1980
1982
1981-I983
6

 
Control and Research for the American Society
for Microbiology
1985-1991
Member - Planning Committee for Symposium on
"Microbial Aspects of Surface Water Quality",
Water Pollution Control Federation.
1988-1989
Co-Chairman - Organizing Committee of the
2nd International Symposium on Contamination
of the Environment by Viruses and Methods of
Control. Vienna, Austria
1987-1989
Chairman - Enteric Virus Committee, Joint Editorial Board,
17th edition supplement and 18th edition, Standard Methods
for the Examination of Water and Wastewater
1989-1997
Member - Project Advisory Committee, National Groundwater Virus Survey, American Water Works
Research Foundation
1991-2000
Member - Research Committee, American Water Works Association
1992-1994
Member- - Workshop on "Microbial and Disinfection By-products Research Needs",
American Water Works Research Foundation
1993
Member - International Scientific Committee,
"Assessing and Managing Health Risks
from Drinking Water Contamination:
Approaches and Application".
1993-199
Member - Organizing Committee, "Second
International Symposium on
Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse"
1993-1995
Member - Organizing Committee "Global Issues
in
Microbiological Water Quality for
the next Century". Sponsored by
UNESCO, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, and the American
Academy for Microbiology
1994-1995
Member - American Soc. for Microbiology delegate.
United States National Committee of the
International
Water Quality Association (now International Water Association.)
1992-1999
Member - Public and Scientific Committee of the
American Soc. Microbiology
1996-2006
Member- Organizing committee for Workshop on Acceptable Microbial Risks in Water,
American Academy for Microbiology
2006
Member -- Workshop on Select Criteria for Drinking Water Candidate Contaminate List,
Office of Water, United States Environmental Protection Agency
2006
Member --- Scientific Review of the Proposed Risk Assessment Bulletin from the Office of
Management and Budget, National Research Council
2006
7

 
DOCTORAL DISSERTATION
Gerba, C.P. 1973. Investigations into the effects of particulate matter on the survival of a virus in seawater,
University of Miami.
PUBLICATIONS
BOOKS
Gerba, C.P., and S.M. Goyal (eds.). 1982.
Methods in Environ.nienial Virology.
Marcel-Dekker, Inc., NY.
Bitton, G., and C.P. Gerba (eds.). 1984.
Groundwater Pollution Microbiology.
John Wiley and Sons, NY.
Goya], S.M., C.P. Gerba, and G.
Bitton.
1987.
11hage Ecology.
John Wiley and Sons, N.Y.
Pepper, I.L., C.P. Gerba, and J.W. Brendecke. 1995.
Environmental Microbiology - A Laboratory Manual.
Academic Press, NY.
Pepper, I.L., C.P. Gerba, M.L. Brusseau, and J.F. Brendecke (eds). 1996.
Pollution
Science.
Academic Press,
San Diego, CA.
Haas, C.N., J.B. Rose, and C.P. Gerba. 1999.
Quantitative Microbial Risk Assessinent.
John Wiley, NY.
Maier, R.M., I.L. Pepper and C.P. Gerba. 2000.
Environmental Microbiology.
Academic Press, NY.
Pepper, I.L., C.P. Gerba, and J.W. Brendecke. 2004.
Environmental Microbiology - A Laboratory Manual.
Second Edition. Academic Press, San Diego.
Pepper, 1. L., C. P. Gerba and M. L. Brusseau. 2006.
Environmental and Pollution Science,
Second Edition.
Academic Press, San Diego.
PEER REVIEWED JOURNAL ARTICLES
Gerba, C.P., and G.E. Schaiberger. 1973. Biscayne Bay: bacteriological data interpretation. Flor. Sci. 36:104-
109
Gerba, C.P., and G.E. Schaiberger. 1975. Effect of particulates on the survival of virus in seawater. J. Water
Pollut. Contr. Fed. 47:93-103.
Gerba, C.P., and G.E. Schaiberger. 1975. Aggregation as a factor in loss of viral titer in seawater.
Water Res.
9:567-571.
8

 
Gerba, C.P., C. Wallis, and J.L. Mclnick. 1975. Microbial hazards of household toilets. Droplet production
and the fate of residual organisms. Appl. Microbiol. 30:229-237.
Gerba, C.P., C. Wallis, and J.L. Melnick. 1975. The fate of wastewater bacteria and viruses in soil. Jr. Irrig.
Drain. Div. ASCE 101:157-174.
Gerba, C.P., M.D. Sobsey, C. Wallis, and J.L. Melnick. 1975. Factors influencing the adsorption of poliovirus
onto activated carbon in wastewater. Environ. Sci. Technol. 9:727-731.
Gerba, C.P., C. Wallis, and J.L. Melnick. 1975. Viruses
in water: the problem, some solutions
. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 9:1122-1126.
Farrah, SA., C.P. Gerba, C. Wallis, and J.L. Melnick. 1976. Concentration
of viruses
from large volumes of
tap water
using pleated inembrane filters
. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 31:221-226.
Gilbert, R.G., R.C. Rice, H. I3ouwer, C.P. Gerba, C. Wallis, and J.L. Melnick. 1976. Wastewater renovation
and reuse: virus removal by soil filtration. Science 192:10041005.
Gerba, C.P., and J.S. McLeod. 1976. Effect
of sediments on the survival
of
Escher
ichia cola
in marine waters.
Appl. Environ.
Microbiol
. 32:114-120.
Gilbert, R.G., C.P. Gerba, R.C. Rice, H. I3ouwcr, C. Wallis, and J.L. Melnick. 1976. Virus and bacteria
removal from wastewater by land treatment. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 32:333-338.
Farrah
, S.R., S.M. Goyal, C.P. Gerba, C. Wallis, and P.T.I3. Shaffer. 1976. Characteristics of humic acid and
organic compounds
concentrated
from tapwater
using the Aquella
virus concentrator
. Water
Res. 10
:897-901.
Payment, P., C.P. Gerba, C. Wallis, and J.L. Melnick. 1976. Methods for concentrating viruses from large
volumes of estuarine water on pleated membrane filters. Water Res. 10:893-896.
Lance, J.C., C.P. Gerba, and J.L. Melnick. 1976. Virus movement in soil columns flooded with secondary
sewage effluent. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 32:520-526.
Lance, J.C., and C.P. Gerba. 1977. Nitrogen,
phosphate and virus removal from sewage water during land
filtration. frog. Water Technol. 9:157-166,
Farrah, S.R., C.P. Gerba, S.M. Goyal, C. Wallis, and J.L. Melnick. 1977. Regeneration of pleated filters used
to concentrate enteroviruses from large volumes of tap water. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 33:308-311.
Gerba, C.P., C. Wallis, and J.L. Melnick. 1977. Disinfection of wastewater by photodynamic oxidation. J.
Water Pollut. Contr. Fed. 49:575-583.
9

 
Hobbs, M.F., C.P. Gerba, C. Wallis, J.L.
Melnick, and J.S. Lennon
.
1977. Photodynamic inactivation of
infectious agents
. J. Environ. Eng. Div. ASCE 103:459-472.
Sobsey, M.D., C.P. Gerba, C. Wallis, and J.L. Melnick. 1977. Concentration of enteroviruses
from large
volumes of turbid estuary water. Can. J. Microbiol. 23:770-778.
Farrah, S.R., S.M. Goya], C.P. Gerba, C. Wallis, and J.F. Melnick. 1977. Concentration of enteroviruses from
estuarine water.
Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 33:1192-1196.
Gerba, C.P., S.M. Goya], E.M. Smith, and J.L. Melnick. 1977. Distribution of viral and bacterial pathogens in
a coastal canal community.
Marine Pollut. Bull. 8:279-282.
Gerba, C.P., E.M. Smith, and J.L. Melnick. 1977. Development of a quantitative method for detecting
enteroviruses in estuarine sediments. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 34:158-163.
Goyal, S.M., C.P. Gerba, and J.L. Melnick. 1977. Occurrence and distribution of bacterial indicators and
pathogens in canal communities along the Texas coast. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 34:139-149.
Gerba, C.P., C. Wallis, and J.L. Melnick. 1977. Application
of photodynarrrie oxidation to the disinfection of
tapwater
,
sea-water and sewage contaminated with poliovirus
.
Photochem.
Photobiol. 26
:499-504.
Stagg, C.H., and C.P. Gerba. 1977. Cyanophage as an indicator of animal viruses in wastewater. (Discussion).
J.
Water Pollut. Contr. Fed. 49:1915-1916.
Melnick, J.L., C.P. Gerba, and C. Wallis. 1977. Viruses in water: an increasing awareness of the problem and
approaches to its solution. J, Viestnik AMN, USSR (J. Acad. Med. Sci., USSR) 6:70-75, (In Russian).
Farrah, SK, S.M. Goya], C.P. Gerba, R.H. Conklin, C. Wallis, J.L. Melnick, and H.L. Dupont. 1978. A simple
method for concentration of enteroviruses and rotaviruses from cell culture harvests using; membrane filters.
Intervirology 9:56-59.
Gerba, C.P., S.R. Farrah, S.M. Goyal, C. Wallis, and J.L. Melnick. 1978. Concentration of enteroviruses from
large volumes of tap water, treated sewage and seawater. Appl. Environ. Microbial. 35:540-548.
Farrah, S.R., S.M. Goyal, C.P. Gerba, R.14, Conklin, and E.M. Smith. 1978. Comparison between adsorption
of poliovirus and rotavirus by aluminum hydroxide and activated sludge flocs. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.
35:360-363.
Farrah, S.R., S.M. Goya], C.P. Gerba, C.Waliis, and J.L. Melnick. 1978. Concentration of poliovirus from
tapwater onto mcmbrane filters with aluminum chloride at ambient pH levels. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.
35:624-626.
10

 
Smith, E.M., C.P. Gerba, and J.L. Melnick. 1978. Role of
sediment in the persistence
of enteroviruses in the
estuarine
environment. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 35:685-689.
Stagg, C.H., C. Wallis, C.H. Ward, and C.P. Gerba. 1978. Chlorination of solids-associated colipllages. Prog.
Water,rechnol. 10:381-387.
Goyal, S.M., C.P. Gerba, and J.L. Melnick. 1978. Prevalence of human enteric virus in coastal canal
communities. J. Water Pollut. Contr. Fed. 50:2247-2256.
Farrah, S.R., S.M. Goyal, C.P. Gerba, V.K. Mahajan, C. Wallis, and J.L. Melnick. 1978. Concentration of
humic acid from tap water. Water Res. 12:303-306.
Hurst, C., S.R. Farrah, C.P. Gerba, and J.L. Melnick. 1978. Development of quantitative methods for the
detection of enteroviruses in sewage sludges during activation and following land disposal. Appl. Environ.
Microbiol. 36:81-89.
Gerba, C.P., and J.C. Lance. 1978. Poliovirus removal from primary and secondary sewage by soil filtration.
Appl. Envlron. Microbiol. 36:247-251.
Edmond, T.D., G.E. Schaiberger, and C.P. Gerba. 1978. Detection of enteroviruses near deep marine sewage
outfalls.
Marine Pollut. Bull. 9:246-249.
Gerba, GP., C.H. Stagg, and M.G. Abadic. 1978. Characterization of sewage solid-associated viruses and
behavior in natural waters. Water Res. 12:805-812.
Gerba
,
C.P., and S.M. Goya
].
1978.
Detection and occurrence of enteric viruses in shellfish
:
a review
.
J. Food
Protect. 41
:743-754.
Melnick J.L., C.P. Gerba, and C. Wallis. 1978. Viruses in water. Bull. Wld. HIth. Org. 56:499-508
Gerba, C.P., and C.H. Stagg. 1979.
Protection of viruses
during disinfection by adsorption
to particulate
matter.
(
Discussion
).
J. Water Pollut. Contr. Fed. 51:414-416.
Goya], S.M., C.P. Gerba, and J.L. Melnick. 1979. R+ bacteria in estuarine sediments. Marine Pollut. Bull.
10:25-27.
Goyal, S.M., C.P. Gerba, and J.L. Melnick. 1979. Transferable drug resistance in bacteria of coastal canal
water and sediment.
Water Res. 13:349-356.
Wallis, C., J.L. Melnick, and C.P. Gerba. 1979. Concentration of viruses from water by membrane
chromatography. Ann. Rev. Microbiol. 33:413-437.
11

 
Goya], S.M., C.P. Gerba, and J.L. Melnick. 1979. Duman enteroviruses in oysters and their overlying waters.
Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 37:572-581.
Hurst, CT, and C.P. Gerba. 1979
. Development of a quantitative
method for
the detection of enteroviruses in
soil.
Appl. Environ. Microbiol, 37:626-632.
Estes, M.K., D.Y. Graham, E.M. Smith, and C.P. Gerba. 1979. Rotavirus stability and inactivation. J. Gen.
Virol. 43:443-409.
Smith, E.M., M.K. Estes, D.Y. Graham, and C.P. Gerba. 1979. A plaque assay for the simian rotavirus SA11.
J. Gen. Virol. 43:513-519.
Gerba, C.P., R.A.F. Dixon, F.E. Farber, C. Wallis, and J.L. Melnick. 1979. Photodynamic inactivation of fish
pathogens. Develop. Indust. Microbiol. 20:647-651.
LaBelle, R.L., and C.P. Gerba. 1979. Influence of pH, salinity and organic matter on the adsorption of enteric
viruses to estuarine sediment. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 38:93-101.
Marouk, Y., S.M. Goyal, and C.P. Gerba. 1979. Prevalence, of cnteroviruses in ground water of Israel.
Ground Water 17:487-491.
Goyal, S.M., and C.P. Gerba. 1979. Comparative adsorption ofhun-ran enteroviruses, simian rotavirus and
selected bacteriophages to soils. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 38:241-247.
Melnick, J.L., and C.P. Gerba. 1979
.
Is the water safe to drink? J. Infect
. Dis. 139:736-737.
Gerba, C.P., S.M. Goyal, R.L. LaBelle, 1. Cech, and G.F. Bogdan. 1979. Failure of indicator bacteria to reflect
the occurrence of enteroviruses in marine water. Am. J. Purl. Hlth. 69:1116-1119.
Estes, M.K., D.Y. Graham, C.P. Gerba, and E.M. Smith. 1979. Simian rotavirus SAI I replication in cell
cultures. J. Virol. 31:810-815.
Melnick, J.L., and C.P. Gerba. 1980. The ecology of enteroviruses in natural waters. CRC Crit. Rev. Environ.
Contr. 10:65-93.
Gerba, C.P., S.M. Goyal, C.J. Hurst, and R.L. LaBelle. 1980. Type and strain dependence of enterovirus
adsorption to activated sludge, soils and estuarine sediments.
Water Res. 14:1197-1198.
Lance, J.C., and C.P. Gerba. 1980. Poliovirus movement during high rate land filtration of sewage water. J.
Environ. Qual. 9:31-34.
Hurst, CT, and C.P. Gerba. 1980. Stability of simian rotavirus in fresh and estuarine water. Appl. Environ.
Microbiol. 39:1-5.
12

 
Goya],
S.M., K.S. Zerda
, and C.P.
Gerba. 1980
.
Concentration of coliphages from large volumes of water and
wastewater
.
Appl. Environ
.
Microbiol
.
39:85-91.
Goya], S.M., H. Hanssen, and C.P. Gerba. 1980. Simple method for the concentration of influenza virus from
allantoic fluid on microporous filters. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 39:500-504.
Goyal, S.M., C.P. Gerba, and J.C. Lance. 1980. Movement of endotoxin through soil columns. Appl. Environ.
Microbiol. 39:544-547,
LaBelle, R.L., C.P. Gerba, S.M. Goyal, J.L. Melnick, I. Ce:ch, and G.F. Bogdan. Relationships between
environmental factors, bacterial indicators and the occurrence of enteric viruses in estuarine sediments. Appl.
Environ. Microbiol. 39:588-596.
Wang, D.S., J.C. Lance, and C.P. Gerba. 1980. Evaluation of various soil water samples for virological
sampling.
Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 39:662-664.
LaBelle, R.L., and C.P. Gerba. 1980. Influence of estuarine sediment on virus survival under field conditions.
Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 39:749-755.
Marzouk, Y., S.M. Goyal, and C.P. Gerba. 1980. Relationship of viruses and indicator bacteria in water and
wastewater of Israel.
Water- Res. 14:1585-1590.
Gerba, C.P., S.M. Goyal, 1. Cech, and G.F. Bogdan. 1980. Bacterial indicators and environmental factors as
related to contamination of oysters by enteroviruses. J. Food Protect. 43:99-101.
Goyal, S.M., K.S. Zerda, and C.P. Gerba. 1980. Concentration of bacteriophage lysates by filter
chromatography. J. Virol. Methods. 1:79-85.
Gerba, C.P., K.C. Hou, R.A. Babineau, and J.V. Fiore. 1980. Pyrogen control by depth filtration. Pliarmaeeut.
Technol. 4:83-89.
Hurst, C.J., C.P. Gerba, J.C. Lance, and R.C. Rice. 1980. Survival of enteroviruses in rapid-infiltration basins
during the land application of wastewater. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 40:192-200.
Liew, P., and C.P. Gerba. 1980. Thermostabilization of enteroviruses by estuarine sediment. Appl. Environ.
Microbiol. 40:305-308.
Hou, K., C.P. Gerba, S.M. Goya], and K.S. Zerda. 1980. Capture of latex beads, bacteria, endotoxin and
viruses by charge-modified filters. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 40:892-896.
Goya], S.M., and C.P. Gerba. 1980. Simple method for concentration of bacteria from large volumes of tap
water.
Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 40:912-916.
13

 
Hurst, C.J., C.P. Gerba, and 1. Cech. 1980. Effects of environmental variables and soil characteristics oil virus
survival in soil.
Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 40:1067-1079.
Keswick, B.H., and C.P. Gerba. 1980. Viruses in groundwater. Environ. Sci. 'Fechnol. 14:1290-1297.
Melnick, J.L., and C.P. Gerba. 1980. Viruses in Water and Soil. Public Health Reviews 9:185-213.
Keswick, B.H., C.P. Gerba, and S.M. Goyal. 1981. Occurrence of enteroviruses in community swimming
pools.
Amer. J. Public Health 71:1026-1030.
Gerba, C.P., S.M. Goyal, I. Cech, and G.F. Bogdan. 1981. Quantitative assess€nent of the adsorptive behavior
of viruses to soils. Environ. Sci. Technol. 15:940-944.
Hejkal, T.W., and C.P. Gerba. 1981. Uptake and survival of enteric viruses in the blue crab,
Caffinectes
sapidus.
Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 41:207-211.
Wang, D.S., C.P. Gerba, and J.C. Lance. 1981. Effect of soil permeability on virus removal through soil
columns. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 42:83-88.
Goyal, S.M., and C.P. Gerba. 1982. Occurrence of endotoxins in groundwater during the land application of
wastewater. J. Environ. Sci, and Hlth. A17:187-196.
Keswick, B.H., C.P. Gerba, S.L. Secor, and 1. Cech. 1982. Survival of enteric viruses and indicator bacteria in
groundwater. J. Environ. Sci. and Hlth., A17:903-912.
LaBelle, R.L., and C.P. Gerba. 1982. Investigations into the protective effect of estuarine sediment on virus
survival.
Water Res. 16:469-478.
Schaiberger, G.E., T.D. Edmond, and C.P. Gerba. 1982. Distribution of enteroviruses in sediments contiguous
with a deep marine sewage outfall.
Water. Res. 16:1425-1428.
Melnick, J.L., and C.P. Gerba. 1982. Viruses in surface and drinking water. Environ. Interntl. 7:3-7.
Hcjkal, T.W., C.P. Gerba and V.C. Rao. 1982. Reduction of cytotoxicity in virus concentrates from
environmental samples. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 43:731-733.
Smith, EN., and C.P. Gerba. 1982. Development of a method for the detection of human rotavirus in water
and sewage. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 43:1440-1450.
Ilejkal, T.W., B.H. Keswick, R.L. LaBelle, C.P. Gerba, Y. Sanchez, G. Dreesman, B. Halkin, and J.L. Melnick.
1982. Viruses in a community water supply associated with an outbreak of gastroenteritis and infectious
hepatitis. J. Amer. Water Works Assoc. 74:318-321.
14

 
Keswick, B.H., D.S. Wang, and C.P. Gerba. 1982. The use of n-ieroorganisms as groundwater tracers: a
review.
Ground Water 20:142-149.
Lance, J.C., C.P. Gerba, and D.S. Wang. 1982. Comparative
movement
of different
enteroviruses in soil
columns. J. Inviron. Qual. 11:347-351.
Singh, S.N., and C.P. Gerba. 1983. Concentration of coliphage from water and sewage with charge-modified
filter aid. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 45:232-237.
I-lejkal, T.W., C.P. Gerba, S. Henderson, and M. Freeze. 1983. Bacteriological, virological and chemical
evaluation of a wastewater-aquaculture system. Water Res. 17:1749-1755.
Singh, S.N., J.B. Rose, and C.P. Gerba. 1983. Concentration of viruses from tap water and sewage with a
charge-modified filter aid. J. Virol. Methods 6:329-336.
Gerba, C.P. 1983. Virus
survival and transport in groundwater
.
Develop. Indust
.
Microbiol
. 24:247-251.
Gerba, C.P. 1983. Virus fate in groundwater. Hydrology and Water Resources in Arizona and the Southwest.
13:111-114.
Yates, MN., and C.P. Gerba. 1983. Virus survival in groundwater. Hydrology and Water Resources in
Arizona and the Southwest. 13:115-120.
Bitton, G., and C.P. Gerba. 1983. Microbiologies des eaux souterraines: son interet daps la protection des
resources in cau. (Groundwater microbiology: role in the protection of groundwater resources.) Revue
Francaise des Sciences de L'eau (in French), 2:321-329.
Goyal, S.M., and C.P. Gerba, 1983. VIRDLI, method for detection ofrotavirus from seawater. J. Virol.
Methods 7:279-285.
Farber, F.1., S.E. Gradwhol, P.B. Sanford, M.J. Tobin, K. Vilec, and C.P. Gerba. 1983. Bacteriophage
concentration from water by filter chromatography. J. Virol. Methods 7:297-304.
Gerba, C.P., G.E. Janauer, and M. Costello. 1984. Removal of poliovirus and rotavirus from tapwater by a
quaternary ammonium resin.
Water Res. 18:17-19.
Goyal, S.M., B.H. Keswick, and C.P. Gerba. 1984. Viruses in groundwater and soil beneath sewage irrigated
cropland. Water Res. 18:299-302.
Deetz, T.R., E.M. Smith, S.M. Goyai, C.P. Gerba, J.J. Vollet, L. Tsai, H.L. DuPont, and B.H. Keswick. 1984.
Occurrence of rota- and enteroviruses in drinking; and environmental water in a developing nation.
Water Res.
18:567-571.
15

 
Gerba, C.P., B.H. Keswick, H.L. DuPont, and H.A. Fields. 1984. Isolation of rotavirus and hepatitis A virus
from drinking; water. In:
Enteric Viruses in Watei-.
Monographs in Virology, (J.L. Melnrek, ed.) Vol. 15, pp.
119-125, S. Karger, Basel, Switzerland.
Lance, J.C., and C.P. Gerba. 1984. Virus movement in soil during saturated and unsaturated flow. Appl.
Environ. Microbiol. 47:335-337.
Lance, J.C., and C.P. Gerba. 1984. Effect of ionic composition of suspending solution on virus adsorption by a
soil column. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 47:484-488.
Hejkal, T.
W., E.M. Smith, and
C.P. Gerba. 1984.
Seasonal occurrence of rotavirus in sewage
. Appl. Environ.
Microbiol
. 47-.588-590.
Rose, J.B., S.N. Singh, C.P. Gerba, and L.M. Kelly. 1984. Comparison of mieroporous filters for concentration
of viruses from wastewater. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 47:989-992.
Keswick, B,H., C.P. Gerba, FI.L. DuPont, and J.B. Rose. 1984. Detection of enteric viruses in treated drinking
water.
Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 47:1290-1294.
Gerba, C.P. 1984. Applied and theoretical aspects of virus adsorption to surfaces. Adv. Appl. Microbiol.
30:133-168.
Yates, M.V., and C.P. Gerba. 1984. Factors controlling the survival of virus in groundwater.
Water Sci.
Technol. 17:681-687.
Toranzos, G.A., C.P. Gerba, and
H. Hanssen
.
1984, Simple rnethod for concentration
of viruses from large
volumes of water. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 48:431-432.
Zerda, K.S., and C.P. Gerba. 1984.
Agarose isoelectrofocusing of intact virions
.
J. Virol. Methods. 9:1-6.
Mohrbacher, C.V., R. DeLeon, G.A. Toranzos, R.L. Mullinax, and C.P. Gerba. 1984. Microbial contamination
of groundwater in the P in etop- Lakeside Area of Northern Arizona. Hydrology and Water Resources in Arizona
and the Southwest. 14:157-164.
Stetzenbach, L.D., M.V. Yates, C.P. Gerba, and N.A. Sinclair. 1984. 'l'1}e growth and survival of "naturally-
occurring" bacteria in well water. Hydrology and Water Resources in Arizona and the Southwest. 14:165-174.
DeLeon, R., S.N. Singh, J.B. Rose, R.L. Mullinax, and C.P. Gerba. 1984, Virus removal by rapid sand
filtration, Tucson Water Reuse Project. Hydrology and Water Resources in Arizona and the Southwest. 14:175-
183.
16

 
Gerba, C.P., J,B, Rose, and S.N. Singh. 1985. Waterborne gastroenteritis and viral hepatitis. CRC Crit. Rev.
Environ. Control. 15:213-236.
Zerda, K.S., C.P. Gerba, K.C. Hou, and S.M. Goyal. 1985. Adsorption of viruses to charge-modified silica.
Appl.
Environ. Microbiol. 49J1-95.
Yates, M.V., C.P. Gerba, and L.M. Kelley. 1985. Virus
persistence
in groundwater. Appl. Environ, Microbiol.
49:778-781.
Badawy, A.S., C.P. Gerba, and L.M. Kelley. 1985. Development of a method for recovery of rotavirus from
vegetables. J. Food Protect. 48:261-264.
Wang, D.S., C.P. Gerba, J.C. Lance, and S.M. Goya]. 1985. Comparative removal of enteric bacteria and
poliovirus by sandy soils. J. Environ. Sci. Hlth. A20:617-624.
Keswick, B11., C.P. Gerba, J.B. Rose, and G.A. Toranzos. 1985. Detection of rotavirus in treated drinking
water. Water Sci. Technol. 17:1-6.
Gerba, C.P., and K. Hou. 1985. Endotoxin removal by charge-modified filters. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.
50:1375-1377.
Badawy, A.S., C.P. Gerba, and L.M. Kelley. 1985. Survival of rotavirus SA-l I on vegetables. Food
Microbiol. 2:199-205.
Rose, J.B., C.P. Gerba, S.N. Singh, G.A. Toranzos, and B. Keswick. 1986. Isolating viruses from finished
water, J. American Water Works Assoc. 78:56-61.
Singh, S
.
N., M. Bassous
, C.P. Gerba
, and L.M. Kelley
.
1986. Use of dyes and proteins as indicators of virus
adsorption to soils
.
Water Research
20:267-272.
DeLeon,
R., S.N. Singh
,
J.B. Rose, R.L. Mullinax
,
C.E. Musial, S
.
M. Kutz, N.A. Sinclair
, and C.P.
Gerba.
1986.
Microorganism removal from wastewater by rapid mixed media filtration.
Water Research 20:583-587.
Toranzos, G.A., C.P. Gerba, M. Zapata, and F. Cardona. 1986. Presence de virus enteriques dans des eaux de
consommation a Cochabamba (Bolivie) (in I;rench). Sciences et Techniques do L'Eau,.2:91-93.
Yates, M.V., S.R. Yates, A.W. Warwick, and C.P. Gerba. 1986. Use of geostatisties to predict virus decay
rates for determination of septic tank setback distances. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 52:479-483.
Grondin, J., and C.P. Gerba. 1986. Virus dispersion in a coarse porous medium. Hydrology and Water
Resources in Arizona and the Southwest 16:11-15.
17

 
Gerba, C.P. 1986. Microbial
contamiriatioil ofgroundwater
by landfills:
risk assessment
. Hydrology and
Water
Resources
in Arizona
and the Southwest
16:21-29.
Rose, J.B., G.S. Sun, B.C. Weimer, R.S. Silverman, C.P. Gerba, and N.A. Sinclair. 1986. Microbial quality of
gray water for reuse. Hydrology and Water Resources in Arizona and the Southwest 16:71-83.
Foster, K.E., M.M. Karpiscak, K.J. DeCook, R. Brittain, C.P. Gerba, M.C. Parton, and R.L. Rawles. 1986.
Residential water conservation: progress report for Casa del Agua. Hydrology and Water Resources in Arizona
and the Southwest 16:105-118.
Toranzos, G.A., H. Hanssen, and C.P. Gerba. 1986. Occurrence of enteroviruses and rotaviruses in drinking;
water in Colombia.
Water Sci. Techn. 18:109-114.
Rose, J.B., A. Cifrino, M.S. Madore, C.P. Gerba, C.R. Sterling, and M.J. Arrowood. 1986. Detection of
C,yptosporidiunz
from wastewater and fresh water environments.
Water Sci. Techn. 18:233-239.
DeLeon, R., H.A. Payne, and C.P. Gerba. 1986. Development of a method for poliovirus detection in
freshwater clans. Food Microbiol. 3:345-349.
Rose, J.B., R.L. Mullinax, S.N. Singh, M.V. Yates, and C. P. Gerba. 1987. Occurrence of rotaviruses and
enteroviruses in recreational waters of Oak Creek, Arizona.
Water Research 21:1375-1381.
Thurman, R.B., and C.P. Gerba. 1987. Protecting groundwater from viral contamination by soil modification.
Environ. Sci. Health A22:369-388-
Yates, M.V., S.R. Yates, J. Wagner, and C.P. Gerba. 1987. Modeling virus survival and transport in the
subsurface. J. Contain. Hydrol. 1:329-345.
Musial, C.E., M.J. Arrowood, C.R. Sterling, and C.P. Gerba. 1987. Detection of
Cr yptoaporidiwn
in water
using polypropylene cartridge filters.
Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 53:687-692.
Madore, M.S., J.B. Rose, C.P. Gerba, M.J. Arrowood, and C.R. Sterling;. 1.987. Occurrence of
Cjyptosporidium
oocysts in sewage effluents and select surface waters. J. Parasitol. 74:702-705.
Gerba, C,P., K. Hou, and M.D. Sobsey. 1988. Microbial removal and inactivation from water by filters
containing magnesium peroxide. J. Environ. Sci. Hlth. A23:41-58.
Thurman, R.B., A.B. Margolin, J.P. Rockow, G.E. Janauer, M.J. Costello, and C.P. Gerba. 1988.
Characterization of the interaction between viruses and a solid polymeric contact disinfectant. J. Environ. Sci.
Illth.
A23:405-423.
Hou, K., T. Webster, and C.P. Gerba. 1988. Microporous filters with oxidizing power for iron and manganese
removal from water. J. Environ. Sci. Hlth. A23:483-496.
18

 
Messina, M.C., H.A. Ahmad, J.A. Marchello, C.P. Gerba, and M.W. Paquette. 1988. The effect of liquid
smoke on
Listeria rnonocytogenes.
J.
Food Protect. 51:629-631.
Thurman, R.B., and C.P. Gerba.
1988.
Molecular mechanisms of viral inactivation by water disinfectants.
Adv. Applied
Microbiol
., 33:75-105.
Gerba, C.P. 1988. Viral disease
transmission
by seafoods. Food Technology 42:99-103.
Thurman, R.B., and C.P. Gerba. 1988. Characterization of the effect of aluminum metal on poliovirus. J.
Indust.
Microbiol. 3:33-38.
Gerba, C.P., and S.M. Goyal. 1988. Enteric virus: risk assessment of ocean disposal of sewage sludge.
Water
Sci. Technol. 20:25-31.
Rose, J.I3. H. Darbin, and C.P. Gerba. 1988. Correlations of the protozoa,
Cyptosporidiurn
and
Giardia,
with
water quality variables in a watershed.
Water Sci. Technol. 20:271-276.
Kutz, S.M., and C.P. Gerba. 1988. Comparison of virus survival in freshwater sources.
Water Sci. Technol.
20:467-471.
Richardson, K.J., A.B. Margolin, and C.P. Gerba. 1988. A novel method for liberating viral nucleic acid for
assay of water samples with cDNA probes. J. Virological Methods 22:13-21.
DeLeon, R., J.E. Naranjo, J.I3. Rose, and C.P. Gerba. 1988. Occurrence of enteric viruses and parasites in
reclaimed wastewater used for irrigation in Arizona. Hydrology and Water Resources in Arizona and the
Southwest. 18:79-83.
Toranzos, G.A., C.P. Gerba, and H. Hanssen. 1988. Enteric viruses and coliphages in Latin America. "Toxicity
Assessment, 3:491-510.
Gerba, C.P,, A.B. Margolin, and B.E. Trumper. 1988. Enterovirus detection in water with gene probes. Zent.
gesamte Hyg. 34:518-519.
Fradkin, L., C.P. Gerba, S.M. Goyal, P. Scarpino, R.J.F. Bruins, and J.F. Stara. 1989. The potential public
health impacts of common pathogens in municipal wastewater sludge. J. Environ. Health 51:148-152.
Yahya, M.T., L.K. Landeen, S.M. Kutz,
and C.P
.
Gerba. 1989. Swimming pool disinfection
:
an evaluation of
the efficacy of copper/silver
ions. J. Environ
. Hlth. 51:282-285.
Toranzos, G.A., and C.P. Gerba. 1989. An improved method for concentration of rotaviruses from large
volumes of water. J. Virological Methods 24:131-140.
19

 
Rose, J.B., R. DeLeon, and C.P. Gerba. 1989.
Giardia
and virus monitoring of sewage effluent in the State of
Arizona. Water Sci. Technol. 21:43-47.
Gerba, C.P., A.B. Margolin, and M.J. Hewlett. 1989. Application of gene probes to virus detection in water.
Water Sci. Technol. 21:147-154.
Landeen, L.K., M.T. Yahya, S.M. Kutz, and C.P. Gerba. 1989. Microbiological evaluation of copper/silver
disinfection units for use in swimming pools.
Water Sci. Technol. 21:267-270.
Bales, R.C., C.P. Gerba, G.H. Grondin, and S. L. Jensen. 1989. Bacteriophage transport in sandy soil and
fractured turf:
Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 55:2061-2067.
Landeen, L.K., M.T. Yahya, and C.P. Gerba. 1989. Efficacy of copper/silver and reduced levels of free
chloride on the inactivation of
Legionella pneumophila.
Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 55:3045-3050.
Rose, J.13., L.K. Landeen, K,R. Riley, and C.P. Gerba. 1989. Evaluation of immunofluorescence for detection
of
Cryj.Jtosporidium
and
Giardia
from environmental samples. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 55:3189-3196.
Yahya, M.T., L.K. Landeen, N. R. 1~orshoefel, K. Kujawa, and C.P. Gerba. 1990. Evaluation of potassium
permanganate for inactivation of bacteriophage MS-2 in water systems. J. Environ. Sci. Hlth. A25:81-100.
Soares, A.C., K.L. Josephson, LL. Pepper, and C.P. Gerba. 1989. Occurrence of enteroviruses and
Giardia
cysts in land disposed sewage sludge. Hydrology and Water Resources in Arizona and the Southwest 19:31-36
Naranjo, J.E., A. Rice, R. DeLeon
, J.B. Rose, and
C.P. Gerba.
1989. Monitoring
for viruses in reclaimed water.
Hydrology and Water
Resources in Arizona and the Southwest
19:37-42.
Goyal, S.M., D. Amundson, R.A. Robinson, and C.P. Gerba. 1989. Viruses and drug resistant bacteria in
groundwater of Southeastern Minnesota. J. Minn. Acad. Sci. 55:58-62.
Thurman, R.B., and C.P. Gerba. 1989. The molecular mechanisms of copper and silver in disinfection of
bacteria and viruses. CRC Critical Reviews in Environ. Contr. 18:295-315.
Yates, M.V., L.D. Stetzenbach, C.P. Gerba, and N.A. Sinclair. 1990. The effect of indigenous bacteria on virus
survival in ground water. J. Environ. Sci. Hlth. A25:81-100.
Badawy, A.S., J.B. Rose, and C.P. Gerba. 1990. Comparative survival of enteric viruses and coliphage on
sewage irrigated grass. J. Environ. Sci. Health, A25:937-952.
Yahya, M.T., L.K. Landeen, and C.P. Gerba. 1990. Inactivation of
Legionella pneunmphila
by potassium
perizlanganate.
Environ. Technol. 11:657-662.
20

 
Powelson, D.K., J.R. Sin3pson, and C.P. Gerba. 1990. Virus
transport and
survival
in saturated and unsaturated
flow through
soil columns
.
J. Environ. Qual. 19:396-401.
Bloch, A.B., S
.
L. Strainer
,
J.D. Smith, I-I.S. Margolis, H.A. Fields, T.W. McKinley, C.P. Gerba
,
J.E.
Maynard,
and R.K. Sikes
.
1990. Recovery of Hepatitis A virus from a water supply responsible for a common source
outbreak of Hepatitis
A. Amer.
J. Public Hlth. 80:428-430.
Bull, R.J., C.P. Gerba, and R.R. Trussell. 1990. Evaluation of health risks associated with disinfection. CRC,
Crit. Rev. Environ. Contr. 20:77-113.
Yahya, M.T., L.K. Landeen, M.E. Messina, S.M. Kutz, R. Schulze, and C.P. Gcrba. 1990. Disinfection of
bacteria in water systems using electrolytically generated copper/silver and reduced levels of free chlorine.
Canad. J. Microbiol. 36:109-116.
Rose, J.B., and C.P. Gerba. 1991. Use of risk assessment for development of microbial standards.
Water Sci.
Technol. 24:29-34.
Gerba, C.P., D.K. Powelson, M.T. Yahya, L.G. Wilson, and G.L. Amy. 1991. Fate of viruses in treated sewage
effluent during soil aquifer treatment designed for wastewater reclamation and reuse.
Water Sci. Technol.
24:95-102.
Margolin, A.B., M.J. Hewlett, and C.P. Gerba. 1991. The
application
of poliovirus cDNA probe for the
detection
of enteroviruses in water.
Water Sci. Technol. 24:277-280.
DeLeon, R., and C.P. Gerba. 1991. Detection of rotaviruses in water by gene probes.
Water Sci. Technol,
24:281-284.
Karpiscak, M.M., R.G. Brittain, C.P. Gerba, and I,' -E. Foster. 1991. Demonstrating residential water
conservation in the Sonoran desert: Casa de] Aqua and Desert House.
Water Sci. Technol. 24:323-330.
Rose
, J.B., and C.P. Gerba. 1991. Assessing
potential health risks from
viruses and
parasites
in reclaimed
water in Arizona and Florida.
Water Sei. Technol. 23:2091-2098.
Hurst, C.J., S.A. Schuab, M.D. Sobsey, S.R. Farrah, C.P. Gerba, J.B. Rose, S.M. Goyal, E.P. Larkin, R.
Sullivan, J.T. Tierney, R.T. O'Brien, R.S. Safferrnan, M.E. Morris, F.M. Wellings, A.L. Lewis, G. Berg, P.W.
Britton, and J.A. Winter. 1991. Multilaboratory evaluation of methods for detecting enteric viruses in soils.
Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 57:395-401.
Abbaszadegan, M., C.P. Gerba, and J.B. Rose. 1991. Detection of
Giar dia
cysts with a cDNA probe and
applications to water samples. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 57:927-931.
Powelson, D.K., J.R. Simpson, and C.P. Gerba. 1991. Effects of organic
matter
on virus transport in
unsaturated flow. Appl. Environ. Microbial. 57:2192-2196.
21

 
Pillai, S.D., K.L. Josephson, R.L. Bailey, C.P. Gerba, and I.L. Pepper. 1991. Rapid method for processing soil
samples for polymerase chain reaction amplification of specific gene sequences. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.
57:2283-2286.
Rose, J.B., C.P. Gerba and W. Jakubowski. 1991. Survey of potable water supplies for
Cryptosporidiunn
and
Giard a.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 25:1393-1400.
Bales, R.C., S.R. Hinkle, T.W. Kroeger, K. Stocking, and C. P. Gerba. 1991. Bacteriopllage adsorption during
transport through porous media: chemical perturbations and reversibility. Environ. Sci. Technol. 25:2088-2095.
Rose, J.B., G-S. Sun, C.P. Gerba, and N.A. Sinclair. 1991. Microbial quality and persistence of enteric
pathogens in graywater from various household sources.
Water Res. 25:37-42.
Yahya, M.T., T.M. Straub, C.P. Gerba, and A.B. Margolin. 1991. Inactivation of bacteriophage MS-2 and
poliovirus in copper, galvanized and plastic domestic water pipes. International J. Environ. Health. 1:76-86.
Regli, S., J. B. Rose, C. H. Haas, and C. P. Gerba. 1991. Modeling the risk from
Giardia
and viruses in
drinking water. J. Ant. Water Works Assoc. 84:76-84.
Governal, R. A.,
w r. Yahya,
C. P. Gerba, and F. Shadman. 1991. Oligotrophic bacteria in ultra-pure water
systems: media selection and process component evaluations. J. Industrial Microbiol. 8:223-227.
Josephson, K.L., S.D. Pillai, J. Way, C.P. Gerba, and I.L. Pepper. 1991. Fecal coliforms in soil detected by
polyrnerase chain reaction and DNA-DNA hybridizations. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 55:1326-1332.
Straub, T.M., I.L. Pepper, and C.P. Gerba. 1992. Persistence of viruses in desert soils amended with
anaerobically digested sewage sludge. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 58:636-641.
Governal, R.A., M.T. Yahya, C.P. Gerba, and F. Shadman. 1992. Comparison of assimilable organic carbon and
UV-oxidizable carbon for evaluation of ultrapure-water systems. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 58:724-726.
Soares,
A.C., LL. Pepper,
and C.P. Gerba
.
1992. Recovery of poliovirus from sludge-amended soils. J. Environ.
Sci. Hlth
.
A27:999-1005.
Sulfita, J.M., C.P. Gerba, R.K. Ham, A.C. Palrnisano, W.L. Rathje, and J.A, Robinson. 1992. The world's
largest landfill:
multidisciplinary investigation. Environ. Sci. "Technol. 26:1486-1495.
Yahya, M.T., T. M. Straub, and C.P. Gerba. 1992. Inactivation of coliphage MS-2 and poliovirus by copper,
silver, and chlorine. Can. J. Microbiol. 38:430-435.
Yahya, M. T., J.M. Cassells, T.M. Straub, and C.P. Gerba. 1992. Reduction of microbial aerosols by automatic
toilet bowl cleaners. J. Environ. 1-11th., 55:32.
22

 
Rusin, P. A., N. A. Sinclair, C. P. Gerba, and M. Gershman. 1992. Application of phage typing to the
identification of sources of groundwater contamination. J. Contaminant I-Iyd. 11:173-188.
Sobsey, M. D., A. P. Dufour, C. P. Gerba, M. W. LeChevallier, and P. Payment. 1993. Using a conceptual
framework for assessing risks to health from microbes in drinking water. J. Ain. Water Works Assoc. 85:44-
48.305.
Governal, R. A., C. P. Gerba, and F. Shadman. 1993. Characterization of organic impurities in high-purity water
systems by AOC and TOC. Ultrapure Water April: 19-24.
Margolin, A. B., C. P. Gerba, K. J. Richardson, and J. E. Naranjo. 1993. Comparison of cell culture and a
poliovirus gene probe assay for the detection of enteroviruses in environm
ental samples
. Water Sci. Technol.
27:311-314.
lnriquez, C. E., M. Abbaszadegan, 1. L. Pepper, K. J. Richardson, A. B. Margolin, and C. 11. Gerba. 1993.
Con-iparison of poliovirus detection in water by cell culture and nucleic acid hybridization. Water Sci. Technol.
27:315-319.
Abbaszadegan, M., C. P. Gerba, M. T. Yahya, and P. Rusin. 1993. Evaluation of a microbiological water
purifier for inactivation of viruses, bacteria and
Giardia
cysts. Water Sci. Technol. 27:329-333.
Yahya, M. T., L. Galso3nies, C. P. Gerba, and R. C. Bales. 1993. Survival of bacteriophages MS-2 and PRD-I in
ground water. Water Sci. Technol. 27:409-411.
Straub, T. M., 1. L. Pepper, and C. P. Gerba. 1993. Virus survival in sewage sludge amended desert soil. Water
Sci. Technol. 27:421-424.
Naranjo, J. E., C. P. Gerba, S. M. Bradford, and J. Irwin. 1993. Virus removal by an on-site wastewater
treatment and recycling system. Water Sci. Technol. 27:441-444.
Yahya, M. T., C. B. Cluff, and C. P. Gerba. 1993. Virus removal by slow sand filtration and nano#iltration.
Water Sci. Technol. 27:445-448.
Bales, R. C., S. Li, K. M. Maguire, M. T. Yahya and C. P. Gerba. 1993. MS-2 and poliovirus transport in porous
media: hydrophobic effects and chemical perturbations. Water Resources Res. 29:957-963.
Straub, T. M., I. L. Pepper, C. P. Gerba. 1993. Hazards from pathogenic microorganisms in land disposed
sewage sludge. Rev. Environ. Contamination Toxicology. 132:55-91.
Abbaszadegan, M., M. S. Huber, C. P. Gerba, and 1. L. Pepper. 1993. Detection of enteroviruses in groundwater
by polyrnerase chain reaction. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 59:1318-1324.
23

 
Way, J. S., K. L. Josephson, S. D. Pillai, M. Abbaszadegan, C. P. Gerba, and 1. L. Pepper. 1993. Specific
detection of
Salmonella
spp. by multiplex chain reaction. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 59:1473-1479.
Powelson, D. K., C. P. Gerba, and M. T. Yahya. 1993. Virus transport and removal in wastewater during aquifer
recharge.
Water Res. 27:583-590.
Lnriquez, C. E., M. Abbaszadegan, 1. L. Pepper, K. J. Richardson, and C. P. Gerba. 1993. Poliovirus detection
in water by cell culture and nucleic acid hybridization. Water Res. 27:1113-1118.
Kinoskita, T. R. G. Bales, M. T. Yahya, and C. P. Gerba. 1993. Bacteria transport in a porous medium: retention
of bacillus and
Pseudornonas
on silica surfaces. Water Res, 27:1295-1301.
McKay, L. D., J. A. Cherry, R. C. Bales, M. T. Yahya, and C. 1'. Gerba. 1993. A field example of bacteriophage
as tracers of fractured flow. Envion. Sci. Technol. 27:1075-1079.
Pepper, I.L., K.L. Josephson, R.L. Bailey, M.D. Burr, and C.P. Gerba. 1993. Survival of indicator organisms in
Sonoran desert soil amended with sewage sludge. J. Environ. Sci. Health, A28:1287-1302.
Kinoshita, T., R. C. Bales, K. M. Maguire, and C. P. Gerba. 1993. Effect of pH on bacteriophage transport
through sandy soils. J. Contaminant Hydrology 14:55-70.
DeLeon,
R., J.B. Rose
,
A. Bosch, F. Torrella, and C.P. Gerba. 1993. Detection of
Gi.ardia, Cryplosporidh.an,
and enteric viruses in surface and
tap water samples
in Spain
.
International
J.Environ. Hlth. Res., 3:121-129.
Haas, C.N., J.B. Rose, C.P. Gerba, and S. Regli. 1993. Risk assessment of virus in drinking water.
Risk
Analysis,
13:545-552.
Straub, T.M., I.L. Pepper, M. Abbaszadegan, and C.P. Gerba. 1994. A method to detect enteroviruses in
sewage sludge-amended soil using the PCR. Appl. Environ. Microbiol., 60:1014-1017.
Ma, Ju-fang;
J. Naranjo, and
C.P. Gerba. 1994.
Evaluation
of MK filters for recovery
of enteroviruses from
tap water.
Appl. Environ. Microbiol., 60:1974-1977.
Ma, Ju-Fang; T.M. Straub, I.L. Pepper, and C.P. Gerba. 1994. Cell culture and PCR determination of
poliovirus inactivation by disinfectants.
AppI. E nviron. MicrobioI., 60:4203-4206.
Powelson, D.K., and C.P. Gerba. 1994. Virus removal from sewage effluents drying saturated and unsaturated
flow through soil columns.
Water Res., 28:2175-2181.
Huber, S.H., C.P. Gerba
,
and M. Abbaszadegan
.
1994. Study of persistence of enteric viruses in Iandfrlled
disposable diapers. Environ
.
Sci. Technol
., 28:1767-1772.
24

 
Soares, A.C., T.M. Straub, I.L. Pepper, and C.P. Gerba. 1994. Effect of anaerobic digestion on the
cnteroviruses and
Gia1°dia
cysts in sewage sludge. J. Environ. Sci. Health A29:1887:1897.
Straub, T.M., I.L. Pepper, and C.P. Gerba. 1994. Detection of naturally occurring cnteroviruses and hepatitis A
virus in undigested and anacrobically digested sludge using the polymerase chain reaction. Can. J. Microbiol.
40:884-887.
Straub, T.M., C.P. Gerba, X. Lhou, R. Price, and M.T. Yahya. 1995. Synergistic inactivation of
Escherichia
coh
and MS-2 coliphage by chlorarnine and cupric chloride.
Water Res., 24:811-818.
Enriquez, C.E., C.J. Hurst, and C.P. Gerba. 1995. Survival of the enteric adenoviruses 40 and 41 in tap, sea,
and waste water.
Water Res., 29:2548-2553.
Enriquez
, C.E., and C.P. Gerba.
1995. Concentration of enteric adenovirus
40 from
tap, sea, and waste water.
Water Res., 29:2554-2560.
Gerba, C.P., T.M. Straub, J.B. Rose, M.M. Karpiscak, K.E. Koster, and R.G. Brittain. 1995.
Water quality
study of graywater treatment systems.
Water Resources Bulletin. 31:109-116.
Straub, T.M., I.L. Pepper, and C.P. Gerba. 1995. Comparison of PCR and cell culture for detection of
cnteroviruses in sludge-amended field soils and determination of their transport.
Appl. Environ. Microbiol.,
61:2066-2068.
Bales, R.C., S. Li, K.M. Maguire, M.T. Yahya, C.P. Gerba, and R.W. Harvey. 1995. Virus and bacteria
transport in a sandy aquifer, Cape Cod, MA. Ground Water. 33:653-661.
Cassells, J.M., M.T. Yahya, C.P. Gerba, and J.B. Rose. 1995. Efficacy of a combined system of copper and
silver and free chlorine for inactivation of
Naegler°ia P-owleri
amoebas in water.
Water Sci. Tech. 31:119-122.
Straub, "I'.M., I.L. Pepper, and C.P. Gerba. 1995, Removal of PCR inhibiting substances in sewage sludge
amended soil.
Water Sci. Tech. 31:311-315.
Reynolds, K.A., C.P. Gerba, and I.L. Pepper. 1995. Detection of enteroviruses in marine waters by direct RT-
PCR and cell culture.
Water Sci. Tech. 31:323-328.
Johnson, D.C., K.A. Reynolds, C.P. Gerba, I.L. Pepper and J.B. Rose. 1995. Detection of
Giardia
and
Cryplo.517or°idium
in marine waters.
Wat. Sci. Tech. 31:439-441
Gerba, C.P., M.S. Huber, J. Naranjo, J.P. Rose, and Susan Bradford. 1995. Occurrence of enteric pathogens in
con-rposted domestic solid waste containing disposable diapers.
Waste Management and Research 13:315-324.
Rose, J.B., C.N. Haas, and C.P. Gerba. 1995. Linking microbiological criteria for foods with quantitative risk
assessment. J. Food Safety. 15:121-132.
25

 
Ma, Ju-Fang, C,P. Gerba, and I.L. Pepper. 1995. Increased sensitivity of poliovirus detection in tapwater
concentrates by reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction. J. Virological Methods. 55:295-302.
Reynolds, K.A., C.P. Gerba, and I.L. Pepper. 1996. Detection of infectious enteroviruses by an integrated cell
culture-PCR procedure. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 62:1424-1427.
Haas, C.N., C.S. Crockett, J.B. Rose, C.P. Gerba, and A.M. Faris. 1996. Assessing the risk posed by oocysts in
drinking water. J. Am. Water Works Assoc., 88:131-136.
Gerba, C.P., J.B. Rose, and C.N. Haas. 1996. Sensitive populations: who is at the greatest risk? Int. J. Food
Microbiol., 30:113-123.
Karpiscak, M.M., C.P. Gerba, P.M. Watt, K.E.Foster, and J.A. Falabi. 1996. Multi-species plant systems for
wastewater quality improvements and habitat enhancement.
Wat. Sci. 'T'ech., 33:231-236.
Hinsby, K., L.D. McCay, P. Jorgensen, M. Lenczewski, and C.P. Gerba. 1996. Fracture aperture measurements
and migration of solutes, viruses, and immiscible creosote in a column of clay-till. Ground Water. 34:1065-
1075.
Meng, Q.S., and C.P. Gerba. 1996. Comparative inactivation of enteric adenovirus, polio virus, and cohphages
by ultraviolet irradiation,
Wat. Res. 30:2665-2668.
Gerba, C.P., J.B. Rose, C.N. Haas, and K.D. Crabtree. 1996.
Waterborne rotavirus: a risk assessment.
Water
Res., 30:2929-2940.
Brown, K., G. Craun, A. Dunfour, J. Eisenberg, J. Foran, C. Gauntt, C. Gerba, et al. 1996. A conceptual
framework
to assess
the risks of human disease following exposure to pathogens. Risk Analysis 16:841-848.
Abbaszadegan, M., M.S. Huber, C.P. Gerba, and LL. Pepper. 1997. Detection of
Giardica
cysts by
amplification of heat shock-induced mRNA. Appl. Environ. Microbiol., 63: 324-328.
Enriquez, Carlos, E., R. Enriquez-Gordillo, D.I. Kennedy, and C.P. Gerba. 1997. Bacteriologic survey of used
cellulose sponges and cotton dishcloths from domestic kitchens. Dairy, Food Environ. Sanitation, 17:20-24.
Bales, R.C., L. Shimin, T.C. Jim Yeh, M.I. Lenczewski, and C.P. Gerba. 1997. Bacteriophage and microsphere
transport in saturated porous media: Forced-gradient experiment at Borden, Ontario.
Water Resource Research,
33:639-648.
Haas, C,H., J.B. Rose, C,.P. Gerba, and C.S. Crockett. 1997.
What predictive food microbiology can ]earn from
water microbiology. Food Technology, 51:91-94.
26

 
Abbas adegan, M., M.N. Hasan, C.P. Gerba, P.F. Roessler, B.R. Wilson, R. Kuennen, and E. Van Dellen.
1997. The disinfection efficacy of a point-of-use water treatment system against bacterial, viral and protozoan
waterborne pathogens. Wat. Res., 31:574-582.
Governal, R.A., and C.P. Gerba. 1997. Persistence of MS-2 and PRD-1 bacteriophages in an ultrapure water
system. J. Industrial Microbiol. 18:297-301.
Meer, R.R., C.P. Gerba, and C.E. Enriquez. 1997. Microbial survey of office coffee cups and effectiveness of
an office cup washer for reduction of bacteria. Dairy, Food Environ. Sanitation. 17:352-355.
Naranjo, J.E., C.I. Chaidez, M. Quinonez, C.P. Gerba, J. Olson, and J. Dekko. 1997. Evaluation of portable
water purification system for the removal of enteric pathogens.
Wat. Sci. Tech. 35:55-58.
Johnson, D.C., C.E. Enriquez, I.L. Pepper, T.L. Davis, C.P. Gerba, and J.B. Rose. 1997. Survival of
Giardia,
Cryplo.slx»°idium,
poliovirus and
Salmonella
in marine waters.
Wat. Sci. Tech. 35:261-268.
Gerba, C.P., D.C. Johnson, and M.N. Hasan. 1997. Efficacy of iodine water purification tablets against
Cryptosporidium
Oocysts and
Giardia
Oocysts.
Wilderness Environ.. Medicine. 8:96-100.
Crabtree, K.D., C.P. Gerba, J.B. Rose, and C.N. Haas.
1997.
Waterborne adenovirus: A risk assessment.
Wat.
Sci. Tech. 35:1-6.
Rusin, P.A., J.B. Rose, C.N. Haas, and GP. Gerba. 1997. Risk assessment of opportunistic bacterial pathogens
in drinking; Water. Rev. Environ. Toxicol. 152:57-83.
Rusin, P.A., J.B, Rose and C.P. Gerba. 1997. Health significance of pigmented bacteria in drinking; water.
Wat. Sci. Tech. 33:21-27.
Reynolds, K.S., C.P. Gerba, and I.L. Pepper. 1997. Rapid PCR-based monitoring of infectious enteroviruses in
drinking water.
Wat. Sci. Tech. 35:423-427.
Gerba, C.P., J.E. Naranjo, and M.N. Hasan. 1997. Evaluation of a combined portable reverse osmosis and
iodine resin drinking water treatment system for control of enteric waterborne pathogens. J. Environ. Sci.
Health. 32:2337-2354.
Enriquez, C.E., Enriquez, V.E., and C.P. Gerba. 1997. Reduction of contamination in the household kitchen
environment through the use of self disinfecting sponges. Dairy, Food and Environ Sanitation. 17:550-554.
Rusin, P., P. Orosz-Coughlin, and C.P. Gerba. 1998. Reduction of faecal coliform, coliform and heterotrophic
plate count bacteria in the household kitchen and bathroom by disinfection with hypochlorite cleaners. J. Appl.
Microbiol. 85:819-828.
27

 
Reynolds, K.A., C.P. Gerba, and I.L. Pepper. 1998. Incidence of enteroviruses in Mamala Bay, Hawaii using
cell culture and direct polyrnerase chain reaction methodologies, Can. J. Microbiol. 44:598-604.
Dowd, S.E., C.P. Gerba, and I.L. Pepper. 1998. Conformation of the human-pathogenic
Mierospos°idia
Entemcytozoon bieneusi, Encephalitozoon intestinalis, Vittaforma corneae
in water.
Appl. Environ. Microbiol.
64:3332-3333.
Dowd, S.E., C.P. Gerba, F.J. Enriquez, and I.L. Pepper. 1998. PCR amplification and species determination of
microsporidia in formalin fixed feces after imrnunomagnetic separation. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 64:333-
336.
Rusin, P.A., J.B. Rose, and C.P. Gerba. 1998. Health significance of pigmented bacteria in drinking water.
Water Se. Technol. 35:21-27.
Anderson, M.A., M.H. Stewart, M.V. Yates, and C.P. Gerba.
1998.
Modeling the impact of body
-
contact
recreation on pathogen concentrations in a source drinking water reservoir
.
Water Res. 32:3293-3306.
Abbaszadegan, M., A. Emami, R. Farid, and C. Gerba. 1998. Occurrence of viruses and protozoan parasites in
surface, ground and treated water in the city of Maghhad, Iran.
Med. J. Islamic Republic of Iran. 72:41-45.
Dowd, S.E., C.P. Gerba, and I.L. Pepper. 1999. Methods for the detection of nnicrosporidian water. J.
Microbiol. Methods. 35:43-52.
Ilaas, C.N., A. Thayyar-
Madabusi, J.B. Rose, and
C.P. Gerba. 1999. Development and validation of dose-
response relationship
for Listeria nzonocytogenes
.
Quant. Microbiol
.
1:89-102.
Chaidez, C., P. Rusin, J. Naranjo, and C.P. Gerba. 1999. Microbiology of water vending machines. Int'l J.
Environ. HUE 9:197-206.
Governal, RA., and C.P. Gerba. 1999. Removal of MS-2 and PRD-1 bacteriophage from an ultrapure water
system. J. Industrial Microbiol. Biotechnology. 23:166-172.
Karpiscak, M.M., R.J. Freitas, C.P. Gerba, L.R. Sanchez, and E. Shamir. 1999. Management of dairy waste in
the Sonoran desert using constructed wetland technology.
Water Sci. Technol. 40:57-65.
Gerba, C.P., J.A. Thurston, J.A. Falabi, P.M. Watt, and M.M. Karpiscak. 1999. Optimization of artificial
wetland design for removal of indicator microorganisms and pathogenic protozoa.
Water Sci. Technol. 40:363-
368.
Chaidez, C., A. Candil-Ruiz, and C.P. Gerba. 1999. Microbiological survey of private water- tanks in Culiacan,
Mexico. J. Environ. Sci. 111th. A34:1967-1978.
28

 
Abbaszadegan, M., P. Stewart, C. Gerba, and M. LeChevallier. 1999. A strategy for detection of viruses in
groundwater by PCR. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 65:444-449.
Gerba, C.P., and J.E. Naranjo. 2000. Microbiological water purification without the use of chemical
disinfection.
Wilderness Environ. Medicine. 11:12-16.
Dowd, S.E., C.P. Gerba, I.L. Pepper, and S.D. Pillai. 2000. Bioaerosol transport and risk assessment in relation
to the land placement of biosolids. J. Environ. Quality. 29:343-348.
Chaidez, C., A. Candil-Ruiz, and C.P. Gerba. 2000. Microbiological survey of private roof water tanks in
Culiacan, Mexico. J. Environ. Sci. Hlth. A34:1967-1978.
Blackmer, F., K.A. Reynolds, C.P. Gerba, and I.L. Pepper. 2000. Use of integrated cell culture-PCR to
evaluate the effectiveness of poliovirus inactivation by chlorine. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 66:2267-2268.
Cllaidez, C., and C.11. Gerba. 2000. Bacteriological analysis of cellulose sponges and loofahs in domestic
kitchens from a developing country. Dairy, Food, and Environ. Sanit. 20:834-837.
Haas, C.N., A. Thayyar-Madabusi, J
.B. Rose, and
C.P. Gerba. 2000. Development
of a dose-response
relationship
for
L'scherichia soli
0157:H7.
Int'1 J. Hood
Microbiology 56:153-159.
Gerba, C.P. 2000. Assessment of enteric pathogens shedding by bathers during recreational activity and its
impact on water duality. Quant. Microbiol. 2:55-68.
Rusin, P., and C.P. Gerba. 2001. Association of chlorination and UV irrigation to increasing antibiotic
resistance in bacteria. Rev. Environ. Contamination Toxicology. 171:1-52.
Casonova, L.M., C.P. Gerba, and M. Karpiscak. 2001. Chemical and Microbial Characterization of household
graywater. J. Environ. Sci. Hlth, Part A. A36:395-401.
Quinonez-Diaz, MT, M.M. Karpiscak, E.D. Ellman, and C.P. Gerba. 2001. Removal of pathogenic and
indicator microorganisms by a constructed wetland receiving untreated domestic wastewater. J. Environ. Sci.
111th, 36:1311-1320.
Thurston, J.A., C.P. Gerba, K.E. Foster,
and M.M. Karpiscak
. 2001. Fate of
indicator microorganisms and
Giardia
and
Cryptosporidium
in subsurface flow constructed wetlands.
Water
Res. 35:1547-1551.
Enriquez, C., N.
Neuachuku
, and C.P. Gerba.
2001. Direct exposure to animal enteric pathogens. Rev.
Environ. Hlth. 16:117-13 1.
Oron
, G., R. Armon,
R. Mandelbaum
,
Y. Manor, C. Campos, L. Gillerman, M. Salgot, C. Gerba,
1. Klein, and
C. Enriquez. 2001. Secondary
wastewater disposal for crop irrigation with minimal
risks.
Water Sci. Technol,
43:139-146.
29

 
Casanova, L.M., V. Little, R.J. Frye, and C.P. Gerba. 2001. A survey of the microbial quality of recycled
household graywater. J. Amer. Water Resources Assoc. 37: 1313-1319.
Gerba, C. P. 2001. Application of quantitative; risk
assessn-ent
for formulating hygiene policy in the domestic
setting. J. Infection 43, 92-98.
Watt, P.M., D.C. Johnson, and C.P. Gerba. 2002, Improved
method for concentration
of
Glardla,
Cryplosporidhan
and poliovirus in water. J. Environ. Sci. Hlth
. A37:321-330
Gerba, C. P., 1. L. Pepper and L. F. Whitehead. 2002. A risk assessment of emerging pathogens of concern in the
land application of biosolids. Water Sci. Technol. 46:225-230.
Rusin, P., S. Maxwell and C. P. Gerba. 2002. Coax-parative surface-to-hand and linger-to-mounth transfer
efficiency of gram positive, grail negative bacteria, and phage. J. Appl. Micobiol. 93:585-592.
Gerba, C. P., D. M. Gamos and N. Nwachuku. 2002. Comparative inactivation of enteroviruses and adenovirus
2 by UV light. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 68:5167-5169
IHirotani, H., J. Naranj, P. G. Moroyoqui and C. P. Gerba 2002, Demonstration of indicator microorganisms on
surface on the surface of vegetables on the market in the United States and Mexico. J. Food Sci. 67:1847-1850
Thurston-Enriquez, J. A., P. Watt, S. C. Scott, R. Enriquez, 1. L. Pepper and C. P. Gerba. 2002. Detection of
protozoan
parasites
and microsporidia in irrigation waters used for crop production. J. Food Protection 65:378-
382.
Falabi, J. A., C. P. Gerba and M. M. Karpiscak. 2002.
Giardia
and
Cryptosporidium
from waste-water by a
duckweed (Lemna gibba L.) covered pond. Letters Appl. Microbiol. 34:384-387.
Stewart, M. H., M. V. Yates, M A. Anderson, C. P. Gerba, J. B. Rose, R. De Leon and R. L, Wolfe. 2002.
Predicted public health consequences of body-contact recreation on a potable water reservoir. J Arner. Water
Workss Assoc. 94(5): 84-97.
Chaidez, C. and C. P. Gerba. 2002.
Aeromonas hydrophila
and
Pseudonson.as aeruginosa
in drinking water
from various sources: a risk assessment. Res. Adv. Water Res. 3:111-124.
Bright, K. R. C. P. Gerba and P. A. Rusin. 2002. Rapid reduction of
Staphylococcus aureus
populations on
stainless steel surfaces by zeolite ceramic coatings containing silver and zinc ions. J. Hospital Infect. 52:307-
309.
John, D. E., N. Nwachuku, I. L. Pepper, and C. P. Gerba. 2003. Development and optimization of a quantitative
cell culture infectivity assay for the microsporidium
Encephalilozoon intestinalis
and application to ultraviolet
light inactivation. J.
Microbiological Methods. 52:183-196.
30

 
Gerba, C. P., N. Nwachuku, and K. R. Riley. 2003. Disinfection resistance of waterborne pathogens on lie
United States Environmental Protection Agency's contaminant Candidate List (CCL). J. Water Supply:
Research and Techn..-Aqua. 52:81-94.
Thurston
-
Enriquez, J
.
A., C. N. Haas, J. Jacangelo
,
K. Riley, and C. P. Gerba. 2003
.
Inactivation of feline
calicivirus and adenovirus
type 40 by
UV radiation
.
Appl. Environ
.
Microbiol
.
69:577-582.
Gerba, C. P. , K. R. Riley, N. Nwachuku, H. Ryu, and M. Abbaszadegan. 2003. Removal
of Isncephalitozoon
intestinalis,
calicivirus, and coliphages by conventional drinking water treatment. J. Environ. Sci. and Hlth.
A38:1259-1268.
Abbaszadegan, M., M. LeChevallier, and C. P. Gerba. 2003. Occurrence of viruses in U.S. groundwaters. J.
Alncr. Water Works Assoc. 95:(9)107-120.
Mena, K. D., C. P. Gerba, C. N. Haas, and J. B. Rose. 2003. Risk assessnnent of waterborne coxsackievirus. J.
Amer. Water Works Assoc. 95:(7)122-132.
Thurston-Enriquez, J. A., C. N. Haas, J. Jaeamgelo, and C. P. Gerba. 2003. Chlorine inactivation of adenovirus
type 40 and feline calicivirus. Appl. Environ. Microbial. 69:3979-3985.
Nokes, R. L., C. P. Gerba and M. M. Kaipiscak. 2003. Microbial quality improvement by small scale on-site
subsurface wetland treatment. J. Environ. Sci. Health. A38:1849-1855.
Enriquez
, C., A. Alum, E.
M. Suarez-Ray
, C. Y. Choi, G. Oron
and C. P. Gerba
.
2003. Bacteriophages MS2 and
PRDI in turf grass by subsurface drip irrigation. J. Environ
.
Engr. 129:852-857.
Rusin, P. A., S. L. Maxwell, J. P. Brooks, C. P. Gerba and 1. L. Pepper. 2003. Evidence for the absence of
Staphylococcats auretts
in land applied biosolids. Environ. Sci. Technol. 37:4027-4030.
Vidales, J. A., Gerba, C. P. and M. V. Karpiscak. 2003. Virus removal
from
wastewater
in a anultispecies
subsurface-flow constructed wetland. Water Environ. Res. 75:238-245.
Gerba, C. P. and D. Kayed. 2003. Caliciviruses: a major cause of foodborne illness. J. Food Sci. 68:1136-1142.
Rusin, P, K. Bright and C. Gerba. 2003. Rapid reduction of
Legionella pneumophila
on stainless steel with
zeolite coatings containing silver and zinc ions. Letters Appl. Microbiol. 36:69-72.
Quanrud, D. M., S. M. Carroll, C. P. Gerba and R. G. Arnold. 2003. Virus removal during simulated soil-
aquifer treatment.
Water Res. 37:753-762.
Nwachuku, N. and C. P. Gerba. 2004. Health effects
of Acanthanzoeba
spp. and its potential for waterborne
transmission. Rev. Environ. Contann. Toxicology. 180:93-131.
31

 
Karim, M. R., F. D. Manshadi, M. M. Karpiscak, C. P. Gerba. 2004. The persistence and removal of enteric
pathogens in constructed wetlands. Water Res. 38:1831-1837.
Brooks, J. P., C. P. Gerba and I. L. Pepper. 2004. Biological aerosol emission fate, and transport from municipal
and animal wastes. J. Residuals Sci. Technol.1:16-28.
Tanner, B. J. and C. P. Gerba. 2004. Application of the Ct concept for determining the disinfection of
microorganisms in water. J. Swimming Pool Spa Industry 5:8-14.
Chaidez, C. and C. P. Gerba. 2004. Comparison of the rnicrobiologic quality of point-of-use (POU)-treated
water and tap water. Intl. J. Environ. Hlth. 14:253-260.
Pepper, I. L., P. Rusin, D. R. Quintanar, C. Haney, K. L. Joesphson and C. P. Gerba. 2004. Tracking the
concentration of hetertrophic plate count bacteria from the source to the consumer's tap. Intl. J. Food Microbiol.
92:389-295.
Quanrud, D. M., K. Quast, O. Conroy, M. M. Karpiscak, C. P. Gerba, K. E. Lansey, W. P. Ela and R. G. Arnold.
2004. Estrogenic activity and volume fraction of waste water origin in
monitoring
wells along the Santa Cruz
River, Arizona. Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation. 24:86-93.
Nwachuku, N. and C. 11. Gerba. 2004. Microbial
risk assessment
: don't forget the children. Curr. Opinion
Microbiol. 7:1-4.
Nwachuku, N. and C. P. Gerba. 2004. Emerging waterborne pathogens: can we kill them all? Curr. Opinion
Biotechnol. 15:175-180.
Pantoja, C. R., S. A. Navarro, J. Naranjo, D. V. Lightner and C. P. Gerba. 2004. Nonsusceptibility of primate
cells to taura syndrome virus. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 10:2106-2112.
Choi, C., I.
Song
,
S. Stine, J. Pimental and C. Gerba
.
2004. Role of irrigation reuse:coirnparision of subsurface
irrigation and furrow irrigation
.
Water Sci. Technol. 50
:
61-68.
Tanner, B. D., S. Kuwahara, C. P. Gerba and K. A. Reynolds. 2004. Evaluation of electrochemically generated
ozone for the disinfection of water and wastewater. Water Sci. Technol. 50:19-25.
Brooks, J. P., B. D. Tanner, K. L. Joesphson, C. P. Gerba and 1. L. Pepper. 2004. Bioaerosols from the land
application of biosolids in the desert southwest USA. Water Sci. Technol. 50:7-12.
Reynolds, K. A., P. M. Watt, S. A. Boone and C. P. Gerba. 2005. Occurrence of bacteria and biochemical
markers on public surfaces public surfaces. Intl. J. Environ. Hlth. Res. 15:225-234.
32

 
Song, I., C. Y. Choi, S. O'Shaughnessy and C. P. Gerba. 2005. Effects of temperature and moisture on
coliphage PRD-1 survival in soil. J. Food Protect. 68:2118-2122.
Haas, C. N., J. R. Marie, J. B. Rose and C. P. Gerba. Assessment of benefits from use of antimicrobial hand
products: reduction in risk from handling ground beef. Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Hlth. 208:461-466.
Boone, S. A. and C. P. Gerba. 2005. The occurrence of influenza A virus on household and day care center
famites. J. Infect, 51:102-109.
Nwachuku, N. C. 13. Gerba, A. Oswald
and F. D. Mashadi
. 2005. Comparative
inactivation of adenovirus
serotypes by UV light
disinfection
.
Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 71:5633-5636.
Thurston-Enriquez, J. A., C. N. Haas, J. Jacangelo and C. P. Gerba. 2005. Inactivation of enteric adenovirus and
feline calicivirus by ozone. Water Res. 39:3650-3666.
Stine, S.
W., 1. Song, C. Y. Choi and C. P. Gerba. 2005. Application of microbial risk assessment to the
development of standards for enteric pathogens in water used to irrigate fresh produce. J. Food Protect. 68:913-
918.
Brusseau, M. L., J. K. Oleen, J. Santanlaria, L. Cheng, P. Orosz-Coghlan, A. S. Chctoehine, W. J. Blanford, P.
Rykwalder and C. P. Gcrba. 2005. Transport of microsporidium
Tncephalitozoon intestinales
spores in sandy
loam porous media. Water Res. 39:3636-3642.
John, D. E., C. N. Haas, N. Nwachuku and C. P. Gerba.2005. Chlorine and ozone disinfection of
Lneephahlozoon intestinalis
spores.
Water Res. 39:2369-2375.
Blanford,
W. J., M. L. Brusscau, T. C. J, Ych, C. 11. Gerba and R. Harvey, 2005. Influence of water chemistry
and travel distance on bacteriophage PRD-i transport in a sandy aquifer. Water Res. 39:2345-2357.
Thurston-Enriquez, J. A., C. N. Haas, J. Jacangelo and C. P. Gerba. 2005. Inactivation of enteric adenovirus and
feline calicivirus by chlorine dioxide. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 71:3100-3105.
Zaleski, K. J., K. L. Josephson, C. P. Gerba and 1. L. Pepper. 2005. Potential regrowth and recolonization of
salmonellae and indicators in biosolids and biosolid-amended soil. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 71:3701-3708.
Brooks, J. P., B. D. Tanner, K. L. Josephson, C. P. Gerba, C. N. Haas and I. L. Pepper. 2005 A national study on
the residential impact of biological aerosols from the land application of biosolids. J. Appl. Microbiol. 99:310-
322.
Stine, S. W., 1. Song, C. Y. Choi and C. P. Gerba. 2005. The effect of relative humidity on preharvest survival
of bacteria] and viral pathogens on the surface of cantaloupe, lettuce, and bell peepers. J. Food Protect. 68:1352-
1358.
33

 
Gcrba, C. P. and J. E. Smith. 2005. Sources of pathogenic microorganisms and their fate during land application
of wastes. J. Environ. Qua]. 34: 42-48.
Zaleski, K. J., K. L. Josephson, C. P. Gerba and I. L. Pepper. 2005. Survival, growth and regrowth of enteric
indicator and pathogenic bacteria in biosolids, con-ipost, soil, and land applied biosolids. J. Residuals Sci.
"I echnol. 2:49-63.
Orosz-Coghlan, P. A., P. A. Rusin, M. M. Karpiscak and C. P. Gerba. 2006. Microbial source tracking of
Lscherichia soli
in a constructed wetland. Res. J. Water Environ. Assoc. 78:227-232.
Chetochine, A. S., M. L. Brusscau, C. P. Gerba and 1. L. Pepper. 2006. Leaching of phage from class B
biosolids and potential transport through soil. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 72:665-671.
Brooks, J. P., B. D. Tanner, C. P. Gerba and 1. L. Pepper. 2006. The measurement of aerosolized endotoxin
from land application of class B biosolids in southeastern Arizona. Can. J. Microbiol. 52:150-156.
Song, I., S. W. Scott, C. Y. Choi and C. P. Gerba. 2006. Comparison
of crop contamination by microorganisms
during subsurface drip and furrow irrigation
. J. Environ. Eng., 132:1243-1248.
Yepiz-Gomez, M. S., K. R. Bright and C. P. Gerba. 2006. Bacterial occurrence on tabletops and in dishcloths
used to wipe down tabletops in public restaurants and bars. Food Protect. Trends, 26:24-30
AI-Hmoud, N., S. A. O'Shaughnessy, W. Sulleiman, C. P. Gerba and C. Y. Choi.2006. Disinfection of bacterial
pathogens and indicators in biosolids in Jordan. J. Residuals Sci. Technol. 3:185-191.
Pepper, I. L., J. P. Brooks and C. P. Gerba. 2006. Pathogens in biosolids. Adv. Agronomy, 90:1-40.
Nwachuku, N. and C. 1'. Gcrba. 2006. Health risks in children. Rev. Environ. Contain. Toxicol. 186:1-56.
Vidales-Contreras, C. P, Gerba, M. M. Karpoiscark, K. Acuna-Askar and C. Chaidez-Quiroz. 2006. Transport
of coliphage PRD1 in a surface flow constructed wetland. Water Environ. Res. 78:2253-2260.
Straub TM, K. H6ner zu Bentrup, P. O. Orosz-Coghlan, A. Dohnalkova, I3. K. Mayer, R. A. Bartholomew, C.
0. Valdez, C. J. Bruckner-Lea, C. P. Gerba, M. Abbaszadgen and C. A. Nickerson. 2007. In vitro cell culture
infectivity assay for human noroviruses. Enlerg Infect Dis. 13:396-403.
Jones, E. L. A. Kramer, M. Gaither and C. P. Gerba. 2007. The role; of fomite contamination during an outbreak
of norovirus on houseboats. Intl. J. Environ. Hlth. 17:1-9.
Del Campo, N. C., 1. L. Pepper and C. P. Gerba. 2007. Assessment of
Salmonella
growth in Class A biosolid
mixtures. J. Resid. Sci Technol. 4:83-88.
34

 
Boone, A. A. and C. P. Gerba. 2007. Significance of fomites in the spread of respiratory disease and enteric
viral disease. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 73.1687-1696.
Brooks, J. P., S. L. Maxwell, C. Rcnsing, C. P. Gerba and 1. L. Pepper. 2007. Occurrence of antibiotic resistant
bacteria and endotoxin associated with land application of biosolids. Canad. J. Microbial. 53:616-622.
Gerba, C. P. and D. Kennedy. 2007. Enteric virus survival during; household laundering and impact of
disinfection with sodium hypochlorite. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 73:4425-4428.
Brooks
, J. P., C. P. Gerba and I. L. Pepper. 2007.
Diversity of aerosolized bacteria during
;
land application of
biosolids. J. Appl. Microbiol. 10:1779-1790.
Silvestry-Rodriguez, N., K. R. Bright, D. R. Uhlmann, D. C. Slack and C. P. Gerba. 2007. Inactivation of
Pseudommonas aeruginosa
and
Aeromonoas hydrophila
by silver in water. J. Envion. Sci. Filth. Part
A. 42: 1579-1584.
Silvestry-Rodriguez, N., K. E. E. Sicairos-Ruelas, C. P. Gerba and K.R. Bright. 2007. Silver as a disinfectant.
Rev. Environ. Contain. Toxicol. 191:23-45.
Reynolds, K A., K. D. Mena and C. P. Gerba. 2008. Risk of waterborne illness via drinking water in the United
States.
Rev. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 192:117-158.
Sinclair, R., S. A. Boone
,
D. Greenberg
,
P. Keim, and C. P. Gerba. 2008.
Persistence
of Category A select
agents in the environment
.
Appl. Environ.
Microbiol
. 74:555-563.
Silvestry-Rodriguez, N., K. R. Bright, D. C. Slack, D. R. Uhlmann, and C. P. Gerba. 2008. Silver as a residual
disinfectant to prevent biofilm formation in water distribution systems. Appl. Environ. Microbiol., 74:1639-
1641.
Kin, M., C. Y. Choi, and C. P. Gerba. 2008. Source tracking of microbial intrusion in water systems using
artificial neural networks.
Water Res., 42:1308-1314.
Karim, M. R., E. P. Glenn and C. P. Gerba. 2008. The effect of wetland vegetation on the survival of
E,scherichia coli, Salmonella typhimurium.,
bacteriophage MS-2 and polio virus. J. Water Hlth. 6:167-175.
Gerba, C. P., J. E. Naranjo and E. L. Jones. 2008. Virus removal from water by a portable treatment device.
Wilderness Environ. Med., 19:45-49.
Nwachuku, N. and C. P. Gerba. 2008. Occurrence and persistence
ofEscherichia soli
0157:I-17. Rev. Environ,
Sci. Biotechnol., in press.
BOOT
{ CHAPTERS
35

 
Gerba, C.P. 1972, Microorganisms
.
The Isffects
of the Discharge of Secondarily
T
reated Sewage Into The
Everglades Iscosysterns
(
N.
Chitty and C.W. Davis, eds), Sea Grant Special Bulletin, No. 6. Sea Grant
Information Services, University of Miami.
Gerba, C.P., M.D. Sobsey, C. Wallis, and J.L. Melnick. 1974. Enhancement of poliovirus adsorption in
wastewater onto activated carbon.
Virus Survival in Water and Wastewater Systems,
pp. 115-126, (J.F. Malina,
Jr. and 13.11. Sagik, eds.), Center for Research in Water Resources, Austin, TX.
Wallis, C., C.P. Gerba, and J.L. Melnick. 1976. Photodynamic inactivation of viruses and bacteria in sewage
effluents.
In: Viruses in. Water,
pp. 180-188 (G. Berg, H.L. Bodily, E.H. Lennette, J.L. Melnick and T.G.
Metcalf, eds.).
American Public Health Association, Washington, D.C.
Melnick, J.L., C.P. Gerba, C. Wallis, and M.F. Hobbs. 1977. Photodynamie inactivation of virus in sewage.
In:
Virus Aspects of Applying Municipal Wastes to Land
pp. 25-36, Center for Environmental Programs,
University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.
Melnick, J.L., C.P. Gerba, and S.M. Goyal. 1977. Pathogens.
In: Process Design Manual for Land Treatment
of'Municipal Wastewater,
Appendix D. Environmental Protection Agency, Technology Transfer.
Lance, J.C., and C.P. Gerba. 1978. Pretreatment requirements for land application of wastewater. In:
State of
Knowledge in Land 7reatrnent of Wastewater,
Vol. 1, pp. 293-304 (H.L. McKirn, ed.) U.S. Government
Printing Office. 700-171/123.
Gerba, C.P., and S.M. Goyal. 1978. Adsorption of selected enteroviruses to soils. In:
State of Knowledge in
Land Treatment of Wastewater,
Vol. 2, pp. 225-232 (I-I.L. McKim, ed.). U.S. Government Printing; Office;. 700-
171/123.
Gerba, C.P., E.M. Smith, G.E. Schaiberger, and T.D. Edmond. 1979. Field evaluation of methods for the
detection of enteric viruses in marine sediments. In:
Methodology.for Biomass Determinations and Microbial
Activity in Sediments
(C.D. Litchfield and P.L. Seyfied, eds.), pp. 64-67.
Gerba, C.P., S.M. Goyal, R.L. LaBelle, 1. Cecil, and G.F. Bogdan. 1980. Indicator bacteria and the occurrence
of enteroviruses in marine waters. In:
Microbiology - 1980 (D.
Schlessinger, ed.) pp. 380-381. American
Society for Microbiology, Washington, DC.
Gerba, C.P., S.M. Goyal, R.L. LaBelle, I. Cech, and G.F. Bogdon. 1980. Indicator bacteria and the occurrence
of viruses in marine waters. In:
Aquatic Microbial Ecology
(R.R. Colwell and J. Foster, eds.) pp. 348-355. Sea
Grant Program, University of Maryland.
Gerba, GP., and J.C. Lance. 1980. Pathogen removal from wastewater during ground water recharge, hl:
Wastewater Reuse for Groundwater Recharge (T.
Asano and P.V. Roberts, eds.) pp. 137-144. Office of Water
Recycling, California State Water Resources Control Board.
36

 
Goyal, S.M., and C.P. Gerba. 1981. Membrane filters in virology. Ira:
Membrane Filtration Applicalions,
Techniques and Problen7s (B.
Dutka, ed.) pp. 219-251.
Marcel Dekker, NY.
Gerba, C.P., and B.H. Keswick. 1981. Survival and transport of enteric viruses in groundwater. In:
Quality of
Groundwater, (W.
Van Duijvenbooden, I'. Glasbergen and 11. Van Leyveld, eds.) pp. 511-515. Elsevier,
Amsterdam.
Gerba, C.P., and S.M. Goyal.
1981. Potential
for groundwater
contamination by algal endotoxins
.
In:
The
Water E
nvironment
: Algal Toxins and Health,
(W.W. Carmichael, ed.) pp. 303-314. Plenum Press, NY.
Gerba, C.P. 1981. Virus survival in wastewater treatment. Iii:
Viruses and Wastewater Treatn7ent
(M.R.
Goddard and M. Butler, eds.) pp. 39-48. Pergamon Press, NY.
Janauer
,
G.E., C.P. Gerba, W.C. Ghiorse,
M. Costello, and E.M. Heurich
.
1981. Insoluble
polymeric contact
disinfectants
;
an alternative approach to water disinfection
.
In:
Chen7istry
in
Water-
Reuse.
(W.V. Cooper, ed.)
pp. 501-522. Ann Arbor Science, Ann Arbor, MI.
Smith, E.M., and C.P. Gerba. 1982. Laboratory methods for the growth and detection of animal viruses. In:
Methods in l nvironniental Virology,
(C.P. Gerba and S.M. Goyal, eds.) pp. 15-47, Marcel-Dekker, Inc., NY.
Goyal, S.M., and C,P. Gerba. 1982. Concentration of viruses from water by membrane filters. In:
Methods in.
En.vironn7ental Virology.
(C.P. Gerba and S.M. Goya], eds.) pp. 59-116, Marcel-Dekker, Inc., NY.
Gerba, C.P. 1982. Detection of viruses in soil and aquatic sediments. In:
Methods in Environmental Virology,
(C.P. Gerba and S.M. Goyal, eds.) pp. 151-160, Marcel-Dekker, Inc., NY.
Lance, J.C., and C.P. Gerba. 1982. Virus removal with land filtration. In:
Water Reuse
(ET Middlebrooks,
ed.) pp. 641-660. Ann Arbor Sci. Pub., Ann Arbor, MI.
Gerba, C.P. 1983. Methods for recovering
viruses from the water environment
. In:
Viral Pollution of the
L'nvironrnen.t.
(G. Berg, ed.) pp. 19-35, CRC
Press, Boca
Raton, FL.
Bitton, G., and C.P. Gerba. 1984. Groundwater pollution microbiology: the emerging issue. In:
Groundvvaier
Pollution Microbiology.
(G. Bitton and C.P. Gerba, eds.) pp. 1-7, John Wiley and Sons, NY.
Gerba, C.P., and G. Bitton. 1984. Microbial pollutants: their survival and transport in groundwater. In:
Groundwater Pollution Microbiology.
(G. Bitton and C.P. Gerba, eds.) pp. 65-88. John Wiley and Sons, NY.
Gerba, C.P.
1984.
Microorganisn-is as ground water tracers. In
:
Ground
Water
Pollution Microbiology. (G.
Bitton
and C.P.
Gerba, eds
.),
pp. 225-233. John Wiley and Sons, N.Y.
Gerba, C.P. 1985. Microbiological contamination of the subsurface. In:
Groundwater Quality Research.
(C.H.
Ward, W. Giger, and P.L. McCarty, eds.) pp.
53-67.
John Wiley and Sons, NY.
37

 
Gerba, C.P.,
and
S.M. Goyal. 1985.
Pathogen
removal from
wastewater during groundwater recharge. In:
Artificial Recharge of'Groundwater.
(T. Asano, ed.) pp. 283-317, Anil Arbor
Science
,
Ann Arbor, MI.
Rose, J.B,, and C.P. Gerba. 1986. A review of viruses in treated drinking; water. Current Practices in
Environmental Science and Engineering (A. Singh and U.S. Sharma, eds.) 2:119-141.
Gerba, C.P. 1987. Transport and fate of
viruses in soils: field Studies
.
In:
Human Viruses in Sediments,
Sludges and Soils,
(V.C. Rao, ed.) pp. 141-154, CRC
Press
,
Boca Raton, FL.
Gerba, C.P. 1987. Recovering viruses from sewage, effluents and water. In:
Methods for Recovering Viruses
ftom the Anvironrnent (G.
Berg, ed.) pp. 1-23, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Gerba, C.P. 1987. Phages as indicators of fecal pollution. In:
Phage Ecology,
pp. 197-209. (S.M. Goyal, G.
Bitton, and C.P. Gerba, eds.) John Wiley and Sons, NY.
Gerba, C.P., and C.N. Hass. 1988. Assessment of risks associated with enteric viruses in contaminated
drinking water. In:
Chemical and Biological Characterization of Sludges, Sediments, Dredge and Drilling
Muds.
(J.J. Lichtenberg, J.A. Winter, C.I. Weber, and L. Fradkin, eds.) pp. 489-494, American Society for
Testing Materials, Washington, DC.
Gerba, C.P. 1988. Methods for virus sampling and analysis of groundwater. In:
Groundwater Containinataon.
yield Methods,
(A.G. Collins and A.I. Johnson, eds). American Society for Testing Materials, Washington, DC,
pp. 343-348.
Margolin
,
A.B,, K.J.
Richardson
,
R. DeLeon,
and C.P. Gerba. 1989. Application of gene probes to the
detection of enteroviruses in groundwater. In.
Biohazards in Drinking Water
Trealnzent,
(R.A. Larson
, ed.) pp
265-270. Lewis
Publishers, Chelsea, MI.
Calabrese
,
E.J., J. Borzelleca
,
D. Brown
,
R. Bull, W.D
.
Burrows, A
.
Furst
,
C. Gerba,
S. Schaub, E. Singley, V.
Snocyink
,
R. Tardiff, and R. Trussell
.
1989.
Disinfection
. In:
health Effects of Drinking
Water I'reatnzen-t
Technologies
.
Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, MI.
Gerba, C.P., and J.B. Rose. 1990. Viruses in source and drinking water. In:
Drinking Water Microbiology.
(G.A. McFeters, ed.) Science Tech., Inc., Madison, WI, pp. 380-396.
DeLeon, R., and C.P. Gerba. 1990
.
Viral disease transmission by seafood
.
In:
hood Contannination fr°oin
Environmental
Sources
.
(
J.O. I-Iriagu and M.S. Simmons
,
eds.) pp
. 639-662, J.Wiley & Sons, Inc. NY.
Gerba, C.P., NIX, Yates, and S.R. Yates. 1991. Quantitation of factors controlling; viral and microbial
transport in the subsurface.
In:
Modeling the Environmental Fate of Microorgan.isins.
(C. Hurst, ed.)
AnZcrican Society for Microbiology, Washington, DC, pp. 77-88.
38

 
DeFlaun, M
.F., and C.P. Gerba.
1993. Monitoring
rDNA
microorganisms and viruses in soil. In:
Soil
Microbial
Technologies
.
(
B. Metting
, ed.) Marcel Dekker, N.Y., pp. 131-150.
Gerba, C.P., and J.B. Rose. Estimating; viral disease risk from drinking water. 1993. In:
The Quantitative
Ranking of'Environrnental Problems According to Risk.
(C. R. Cothern, ed.) Lewis Publishers, Ann Arbor, MI.,
pp. 117-135.
Powelson
,
D.K., and C.P
.
Gerba. 1995. Fate and transport of microorganisms in the vadose zone,
in
handbook
of Vadose Z
one Characterization and Monitoring
(L.G. Wilson,
L.G. Everett
,
and S.J. Cullen, eds.), pp. 123-
135.
Gerba, C.P. 1996. Pathogens in the environment. In: Pollution Science. I.L. Pepper, C.P. Gerba, and M.L.
Brusseau, eds. pp. 279-299. John Wiley, NY
Gerba, C.P. 1996. Municipal waste and drinking water treatment. In: Pollution Science. I.L. Pepper, C.P.
Gerba, and M.L. Brusseau, eds. pp. 301-319. John Wiley, NY.
Gerba. C.P. 1996. Principles of Toxicology. In: Pollution Science, I.L. Pepper, C.P. Gerba, and M.L.
Brusseau, eds. pp. 323-344. John Wiley, NY.
Gerba, C.P. 1996. Risk Assessment.
In: Pollution
Science. I.L. Pepper, C.P. Gerba, and M.L. Brusseau, eds,
pp. 345-364. John Wiley, NY.
Gerba, C.P. 1996. State and Federal Laws and Regulations. In: Pollution Science. I.L. Pepper, C.P. Gerba,
and M.L. Brusseau, eds. pp. 365-369. John Wiley, NY.
Pepper,
I.L., C.P. Gerba, and
M.L. Brusseau
.
1996. Pollution in the 21
" Century. In
:
Pollution Science. 1.L.
Pepper
,
C.P. Gerba, and M.L.
Brusseau
.
pp. 371376. John Wiley, NY.
Gerba, C.P. 1996. Microbial pathogens in municipal solid waste. In: Microbiology of Solid Waste (A.C.
Pahnesano and M.A. Barley, eds), pp. 155-173. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Pepper, I.L., T.
M. Straub, and
C.P. Gerba. 1996. Detection
of microorganisms in soils and sludges. In:
Environmental Applications of Nucleic Acid
Amplification Techniques
(G.A. Torenzo,
ed.), pp. 95-111,
Technornic Publishers, NY.
Yates, M.Y., and C.P. Gerba. 1998. Microbial considerations in wastewater reclamation and reuse. In:
Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse. T. Asano, ed. pp. 437-488. Technornic, Lancester, PA.
Gerba, GP. 2002. Enteroviruses: basic biology and disease. In: Encyclopedia of Environmental Microbiology,
G. Bitton, ed. pp. 1146-1156. John Wiley, NY
39

 
Karim
,
M. R. and C. P. Gerba
.
2002. Fate of viruses and protozoan parasites in aquatic sediments. In:
Encyclopedia of Environn- ental Microbiology
,
G. Bitton, ed
.
pp. 1252
-
1256. John
Wiley, NY.
Gerba, C. P. 2004.
Risk assessment and environmental regulations
.
In: Environmental Monitoring and
Remediation
, J. Artiola, 1. L.
Pepper and M. Brusseau
, eds. pp. 377-392. Academic
Press, San Diego.
Gerba, C. P. and I. L. Pepper. 2004. Microbial contaminates. In: Environmental Monitoring and Remediation, J.
Artiola, 1. L. Pepper and M. Brusseau, eds. pp. 313-333. Academic Press, Saar Diego.
Gerba, C. P., C. Rensing and C. P. Gerba. 2004. Microbiological properties and processes. In: Environmental
Monitoring and Remediation, J. Artiola, 1. L. Pepper and M. Brusseau, eds. pp. 263-280. Academic Press, San
Diego.
Mena, K. D., J. B. Rose and C. P. Gerba. 2004 Addressing microbial food safety issues quantitatively: a risk
assessment approach. In: Preharvest and Postharvest Food Safety. R. C. Beier, S. D. Pillai, T. D. Phillips and R.
L. Ziprin., eds. Blackwell. Ames IA.
Gerba, C
.
P. 2005
.
Pathogens. In
:
Encyclopedia of Hydrological Sciences. M. G. Anderson
,
ed. Chapter 98, pp.
981-911
Wiley, NY.
Gerba, C.
P. Survival of viruses in the marine environment
.
In:
Oceans and Health
:
Pathogens in the Marine
Environment. S. Belkin
and R. C
olwell, eds. pp
. 133-141. Springer, NY.
Gerba, C. P. 2005. Enteric viruses in biosolids. Infectious Disease Agents in Sewage Sludge and Manure, J. E.
Smith, P. D. Millner, W. Jakubowski, N. Goldstein and R. Rynk., eds. pp. 93-99. JG Press. Emmaus, PA.
Gerba, C. P. 2006. Food Virology: Past, Present and Future. In. Viruses in Foods. S. M. Goyal, Ed. pp. 1-4.
Springer, NY.
Gerba, C. P. and C. Y. Choi. 2006.
Role of irrigation in crop contamination by viruses
. In: Viruses in
Foods. S.
M. Goyal, ed, pp. 257-263.
Pepper, I. L., C. P. Gerba and M. L. Brusseau. 2006. The extent of global pollution. In: Environmental and
Pollution Science, 2"" ed. I. L. Pepper, C. P. Gerba and M. L. Brusseau, eds. pp. 3-12. Academic Press, San
Diego.
Gerba, C. 11. and I. L. Pepper. 2006. Microbial contaminants. In: Environmental and Pollution Science, 2"`1 ed. 1.
L. Pepper, C. P. Gerba and M. L. Brusseau, eds. pp. 144-169 Academic Press, San Diego.
Gerba, C. P. 2006. Toxicology. In: Environmental and Pollution Science, 2"'1 ed. 1. L. Pepper, C. P. Gerba and
M. L. Brusseau, eds. pp. 183-211. Academic Press, San Diego.
40

 
Gerba, C. P. 2006. Risk Assessment. In: Environn-rental and Pollution Science, 2`1 ed. 1. L. Pepper, C. P. Gerba
and M. L. Brusseau, eds. pp. 212-232. Academic Press, San Diego.
Gerba, C. 11. and C. Straub. 2006. Environmental law and regulations. In: Environmental and Pollution Science,
211d ed. I. L. Pepper, C. P. Gerba and M. L. Brusseau, eds. pp. 233-240. Academic Press, San Diego.
Gerba, C. P. 2006. Municipal wastewater treatment. In: Environmental and Pollution Science, 2"`{ ed. 1. L.
Pepper, C. P. Gerba and M. L. Brusseau, eds. pp. 429-450. Academic Press, San Diego.
Gerba, C. P. and 1. L. Pepper. 2006. Land application of biosolids and animal wastes. In: Environmental and
Pollution Science, 2"" ed. I. L. Pepper, C. P. Gerba and M. L. Brusseau, eds. pp. 451-467. Academic Press, San
Diego.
Pepper, 1. L., C. P. Gerba and M. L. Brusseau. 2006. Epilogue: Is the future of pollution history? In:
Environmental and Pollution Science, 2"1 ed. I. L. Pepper, C. P. Gerba and M. L. Brusseau, eds. pp. 516-520.
Academic Press, San Diego.
Gerba, C. P. 2006. Hepatitis E virus. In. Waterborne Pathogens, 2"c3 ed. Pp.279-280. American Water Works
Association. Denver, CO.
Gerba, C. P.
2006. Enteroviruses and parechoviruses
. In: Waterborne Pathogens, 2`1 ed. Pp. 267-271.
American
Water Works Association. Denver, CO.
Gerba, C. P. 2006. Emerging viruses. In: Waterborne Pathogens, 2"' ed. Pp. 263-265. American Water Works
Association. Denver, CO.
Gerba, C. P. 2006. Bacteriophage as pollution indicators. In: The Bacteriophages, 2"" ed. R. Calendar, ed.
pp.695-701. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
Gerba, C. P. 2007. Virus occurrence and survival in the environmental waters. In: Human Viruses in Water. A.
Bosch, ed. pp. 91-108. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Gerba, C. P. 2008. Adenoviruses. Encyclopedia of Public Health. Elsevier, NY., in press.
PROCEEDINGS
Schaiberger, G.E., C.P. Gerba, and E.G. Esterer. 1976. Survival of viruses in the marine environment. In:
Proceeclin.bs oflhe nlernational Syrnposiuni on Marine Pollution Resecirch,
pp. 97-109 (S.P. Meyers, ed.).
Center for Wetlands Resources, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge.
41

 
Lance, J.C., and C.P. Gerba. 1979. Virus removal from sewage during high rate laird filtration. In:
Proceedings of the International Water° Reuse Synzposhan,
Vol. 3, pp. 2282-2297. AW WA Research
Foundation, Denver, CO.
Smith, E.M., and C.P. Gerba. 1981. Survival and detection of rotaviruses in the environment. Proc, Third Int,
Syrnp. Neonatal Diarrhea (S.D. Acres, A.J. Forman and H. Fast, Eds.) pp. 67-79. VIDO, Saskatoon,
Saskatchewan.
GoyaI, S.M., R.L. LaBelle, and C.P. Gerba. 1982. Fate and
transport of viruses in marine waters. In:
Aquaculture: Public Health, Regulatory and Management Aspects,
pp. 112-115. Sea Grant Program, Texas
A&M University, College Station, TX.
Hejkal, T.W., and C.P. Gerba. 1982. Accumulation and persistence of enteroviruses in blue crabs. In:
Aquacullure; Public Health,
Regulatory and Management Aspects,
pp. 126-133. Sea Grant Program, Texas A&M University, College
Station"I X.
Favero, M.S., and C.P. Gerba. 1982.
Environmental aspects of viral hepatitis transmission
. In:
Viral Hepatitis,
(W. Szmuness
, H.J. Alter, and J.E. Maynard, eds.) pp. 617-623. The Franklin
Press, Philadelphia.
Goyal, S.M., B.H. Keswick, and C.P. Gerba. 1982, Occurrence of viruses in groundwater and soil beneath
three land application sites. Proc. Second Int. Water Reuse Symp., pp. 2251-2260. AWWA Research
Foundation, Washington, DC,.
Keswick, B.H., and C.P. Gerba. 1982. Fate and transport of viruses during land treatment of sewage. Proc.
Second Int. Water Reuse Symp., pp. 2261-2281. AWWA Research Foundation, Denver, CO.
Gerba, C.P. 1983. Disinfection by photodynamic oxidation. In:
Progress in Chemical Disinfection. (G.
Janauer, ed.) pp. 115-119, SUNY, Binghamton, NY.
Gerba, C.P. 1984. Pathogens. In.
Utilization ofMunicipal Wastewater and Sludge on Land,
(A.L. Page, T.L.
Gleason, J.E. Smith, I.K. Iskander and L.E. Sommers, eds) pp. 147-187, University of California, Riverside,
CA.
Gerba, C.P. 1983. Virus occurrence in groundwater.
In: Microbial Health Considerations of Soil Disposal of'
Domestic Wastewaters,
pp 240-253. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH.
Gerba, C.P., Y. Marzouk, Y. Manor, E. Idelovitch, and J. Vaughn. 1985. Virus removal during land application
of waste-water: comparison of three projects. In:
Waste Reuse 111,
pp. 1518-1529. Amer. Water Works Assoc.,
Denver, CO.
Margolin, A.B., C.P. Gerba, G.E. Janauer, and M. Costello. 1985. Viral disinfection of water by quaternary
ammonium resin. In:
Wcater Reuse III,
pp. 1530-1545, Amer. Water Works Assoc., Denver, CO.
42

 
Yates, MN., and C.P. Gerba. 1985. Viruses in the subsurface: their survival and migration. In:
Progress in
Chemical Disinfection..[I,
(G. E. Janauer, ed.), pp. 125-133, SUNY, Binghamton,NY.
Singh, S.N., J.B. Rose, B. Mullinax, M.V. Yates, and C.P. Gerba. 1985. Viral contamination of recreational
waters in Oak Creek, Arizona. In:
Water Quality and Environinental Health,
pp. 29-40, Arizona Section Amer.
Water Resources Assoc., Tucson, AZ.
Gerba, C.P. 1985. Strategies for control
of viruses and
Giardia
in drinking water
.
In:
Water
Quality and
Environmental Health,
pp. 67-79, Arizona
Section
American Water
Resources Association
,
Tucson, AZ.
Rose, J.B., C.P. Gerba, and A. Badawy. 1985. Microbial problems encountered with wastewater reuse for
irrigation. Its:
Water Quality and Environmenial Health,
pp. 119-131, Arizona Section American Water
Resources Association, Tucson, AZ.
Musial, C.I
;., and C.P. Gerba.
1985.
Methods for the detection of enteric viruses in water
.
In:
Water
Quality
and Environinental Health,
pp. 133-141, Arizona Section American Water Resources Association
,
Tucson, AZ.
Thurman, R.B., and C.P. Gerba. 1985. Groundwater protection by soil modification. In:
Groundwater
Contanunation and Reelaination,
(K.D. Schmidt, ed.) pp. 105-108, American Water Resources Assoc.,
Bethesda, MD.
Yates, M.V., S.R. Yates, A.W. Warrick, and C.P. Gerba. 1985. Preventing viral contamination of drinking
water. In:
Groundwater Containination and Reclamation,
(K.D. Schmidt, ed.) hp. 117-121, An-ierican Water
Resources Assoc., Bethesda, MD.
Yates, M.V,, C.P. Gerba, and L.M. Kelley
.
1985. Factors influencing the survival of viruses in
groundwater.
In:
Ground Water Quality
Research,
pp. 72-73. University Center for
Water Research
,
Oklahoma State
University, Stillwater, OK.
Wilson, L.G., C.P. Gerba,
M.W. Bolton
,
and J.B
.
Rose. 1985. Subsurface transport of urban runoff pollutants.
hl:
Ground Water
Quality Research,
pp. 158-160. University Center for
Water
Research, Oklahoma State
University
,
Stillwater, OK.
Margolin, A.B., M.J. Hewlett, and C.P. Gerba. 1986. Use of a cDNA dot-blot hybridization technique for
detection of enteroviruses in water.
Water Quality Technology Conference Proceedings, pp. 87-95. American
Water Works Association, Denver, CO.
Rose
,
J.B., C.E. Musial
,
M.,l. Arrowood
,
C.R. Sterling
,
and C.P. Gerba. 1986
.
Development of a method for the
detection
of
Cryptosporidiuin
in drinking water
.
Water
Quality Tech.
Conference Proceedings
, pp. 117-123.
American
Water Works Association
,
Denver, CO.
43

 
Gerba, C,P., J.B. Rose, R. DeLeon, G.A, `I'oranzos, S.N. Singh, and B.H. Keswick. 1986. Isolation of rota- and
enteroviruses from three drinking water supplies. Water Quality Technology Conference Proceedings, pp. 451-
459. American Water Works Assoc., Denver, CO.
Gerba, C.P., and R. Thurman. 1986. Towards developing standard procedures for testing; microbiological water
purifiers.
Progress in Chemical Disinfection - III,
(G.E. Janauer, ed.), pp. 269-282, SUNY, Binghamton, NY.
Gerba, C.P., and C.N.
I-laas. 1986.
Risks associated with enteric viruses in drinking; water
.
Progress in
Chemical Disinfection - III,
(G.E.
Janauer
, ed.), pp. 460-468, SUNY, Binghamton, NY.
Gerba, C. P. 1986. Ecology of enteric virus survival and transport in groundwater. Its:
Perspectives in.
Microbial Ecology (F.
Megusar and M. Ganthor, eds.) pp. 422-425. Slovene Society for Microbiology,
I jubljano, Yugoslavia.
Owen, M.C.R., and C.P. Gerba. 1987. A case history of water in rural areas of Mexico. In:
Rain I'Vater°
Cistern Systems.
pp. f4-1-f4-17, faculty of Engineering, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen 4002, Thailand.
Rose,
J.B., M.S. Madore
, J.L. Riggs, and C.P. Gerba. 1987.
Detection
of
Cryplosporidiurn
and
Giardia
in
environmental waters. Water
Quality Technology
Conference Proceedings
, pp. 417-424. Any. Water Works
Assoc., Portland, OR.
Gerba, C.P., A.B. Margolin, B.I. Trumper, J.B. Rose, and C.Y. Zhang. 1987. Low cost rapid methods for
enterovirus detection in water.
Water Quality Technology Conference Proceedings, pp. 1025-1041.
Water
Works Assoc., Denver, CO.
Gerba, C.P.,
A.B. Margolin
,
and J.B. Rose
.
1987. Low cost rapid methods for virus monitoring of reclaimed
wastewater
.
pp. 338-350
.
In: Analytical
Techniques and Residuals Management in Water Pollution Control,
Water Pollution Control Federation
,
Washington, DC.
Gerba, C.P., A.B. Margolin, and E.T. Trumper. 1987. Enterovirus detection in water with gene probes, pp. 55-
59. Iii:
Contamination of the Environment by Viruses and Methods of Control.
Medical Academy of Dresden,
Germany.
Margolin, A.B., M.S. Bitrick, R. DeLeon, and C.P. Gerba. 1987. Application of gene probes to poliovirus and
hepatitis A virus detection in water and shellfish.
Oceans 87,
pp. 1746-1751, Marine Technology Society.
Washington, DC.
Gerba, C.P., and S.M. Goyal. 1987. Risk Assessment of enteric virus disease transmission by shellfish
consumption.
Oceans 87.
pp. 1757-1760.
Marine Technology Society, Washington, DC.
DeLeon, R., J.E. Naranjo, J.B. Rose, and C.P. Gerba. 1988. Enterovirus,
Cryptosporidium
and
Giardia
monitoring; of wastewater reuse effluent in Arizona.
Water Reuse IV, pp. 833-846.Amer. Water Works Assoc.,
Denver, CO.
44

 
Rose, J.B., M.M. Karpiscak, K.E. Foster, K.J. DeCook, C.P. Gerba, and R. Brittain. 1988. An experiment in
residential water reuse and conservation.
Water Reuse IV, pp. 1391-1398, American Water Works Assoc.,
Denver, CO.
Rose, J.B., D. Kayed, M.S. Madore, C.P. Gerba, M.J. Arrowood, C.R. Sterling, and J.L. Riggs. 1988. Methods
for the recovery of
Giardia
and
Cryptosporidium
from environmental waters and their comparative occurrence.
(P.M. Wallis and B.R. Hammond, eds.)
Advances in Giardia Research,
pp. 205-209. University of Calgary
Press, Calgary, Canada.
Rose, J.B., C.P. Gerba, A.B. Margolin. 1988. Viruses in drinking water: An overview of gene probes and their
usage for detection of viruses in water.
Water Quality Technology Conference Proceedings, pp. 9-32, American
Water Works Association, Denver, CO.
Kut, S.M., L.K. Landeen, M.T. Yahya, and C.P. Gerba. 1988. Microbiology evaluation of copper/silver
disinfection
units
.
pp. 351-368. Progress in Chemical Disinfection IV, State University of New York at
Binghamton.
Postillion
,
F.G., D.M. Esponsito
,
P.A. Rusin
, N.A. Sinclair,
and C.P. Gerba
.
1989. Bacterial fingerprinting to
trace source
of coliform
bacteria during artificial recharge
.
In:
Artificial
Recharge
of Groundwater.
(A.I.
Johnson and D.J
.
Finlayson
,
eds.) pp. 220
-
224, Amer. Soc
. Civil Eng., NY.
Yahya, M.'f., L.K. Landeen, S.M. Kut , and C.P. Gerba. 1989. Inactivation
ofT egion.ella pneuniophila by
exposure to copper/silver ions and reduced levels of free chlorine.
Microbial Aspects of Surface Water Quality,
pp. 82-95, Water Pollution Control Federation, Washington, DC.
Gerba, C.P. 1989. Virus survival and transport in ground water. Proceedings of the 6th Northwest On-site
Wastewater Treatment Short Course. University of Washington, Seattle, WA. pp. 257-270.
Yahya, M.T., and C.P. Gerba. 1990. Evaluation of potassium permanganate for inactivation of bacteriophage
MS-2 in water systems. AWWA Water Quality Tech. Conf., American Water Works Assoc. Denver, CO., pp.
139-146.
Stewart, M.H., R.L. Wolfe, K.J. Richardson, A.B. Margolin, and C.P. Gerba. 1990. Application of gene probe
technology for detection of enteric viruses by a drinking water utility. AWWA Water Quality Tech. Conf.,
American Water Works Assoc. Denver, CO., pp. 823-831.
Gerba, C.P. 1990. Health risks of viruses in water. AWWA Water Quality Tech. Coif, American Water
Works Assoc. Denver, CO., pp. 921-928.
Yahya, M.'T., 'r.M. Straub, and C.P. Gerba. 1990. Inactivation of Bacteriophage MS-2 and poliovirus in
copper, galvanized and plastic domestic water pipes. AWWA Water Quality Tcch. Conf, American Water
Works Assoc. Denver, CO. pp. 1377-1389.
45

 
Gerba, C.P. 1990. Virological aspects of ground water quality.
Drinking TVater and Groundwater Protection,
pp. 241-252. National Environmental health Association, Denver CO.
Gerba, C.P., and R.C. Bales. 1990. Virus transport in the subsurface. In: Proceedings of the First International
Symposium on Microbiology of the Deep Subsurface. (C.B. Fliermans and T.C. Hazen, eds). WSRC
Publications Aiken, SC, pp. 7123.7129.
Naranjo, J.E., G. A. Toranzos, J.B. Rose, and C.P. Gerba. 1990. Occurrence of enteric viruses and protozoan
parasites in water in Panama. Second Biennial Water Quality Syn7posiunl: Microbiological Aspects. University
of Chile, Santiago, Chile, pp. 15-20.
Gerba, C.P., and C.N. Haas. 1990. Assessment of risks associated with enteric viruses in contaminated
drinking water. In:
TViener Mitteilunger
(in German) 83:39-49. Universitat fur Bodenkultur, Wien.
Powelson, D.K., D.J. Cline, M.T. Yahya, L.G. Wilson, and C.P. Gerba. 1991. Virus and bromide transport
through sandy alluvium with infiltrated treated sewage. Fifth Biennial Syrnposiurn on Artificial Recharge of
Groundwater., Tucson, AZ, pp. 49-62.
Abbaszadegan, M., C.P. Gerba, and J,B. Rose. 1991. Detection of
Giarclia
cysts by cDNA probe and
application to water samples. Proceedings of the First U.K. Symposium on Health Related Water Microbiology.
(R.
Morris, L. Alexander, P. Wyn-Jones, and J. Sellwood, eds.) University of Strath Clyde, United Kingdom,
pp. 66-75.
Pepper, LL., K.L. Josephson, R.L. Bailey, and C.P. Gerba. 1992. Detection of bacterial pathogens in water:
comparison of culturable methodology with polyrnerase chain reaction technology. Proceedings Water Quality
Technology Conference, pp, 101-112, American Water Works Association, Denver, CO.
Gerba, C.P.
1992.
Viruses in recharged wastewater
.
Proceedings of the Commission on the Arizona
Environment
.
Arizona Hydrological Society, Tucson
,
AZ, pp. 71-75.
Wilson, B.R., P.F. Roessler, E. Van Dellen, M. Abbaszadegan, and C.P. Gerba. 1993. Coliphage MS-2 as a
UV water disinfection efficacy test surrogate for bacterial and viral pathogens. AWWA Proceedings 1992
Water Quality Technology Conference, Toronto, Ontario, pp. 219-235.
Abbaszadegan, M., M.N. Hasan, R. Kuenner, B. R. Wilson, P. F. Roessler, E. Van Dellen, and C. P. Gerba.
1993. Evaluation of the disinfection efficiency of a point-of-use water treatment system on protozoan, viral , and
bacterial pathogens. AWWA Proceedings 1992 Water Quality Technology Conference, American Water Works
Association, Denver, CO., pp. 399-421.
Abbaszadcgan, M., M. S. Huber, C. P. Gerba, and 1. L. Pepper. 1993. Processing of water samples for the
detection of enteroviruses by polymerise chain reaction. AWWA Proceedings 1992 Water Quality Technology
Conference, American Water Works Association, Denver, CO., pp. 1691-1709.
46

 
Powelson, D. K. and C. P. Gerba. 1993. Comparative removal of viruses by sandy alluvium during filtration of
wastewater. Proceedings Sixth Biennial Symposium on Artificial Recharge of Groundwater, Salt River Project,
Scottsdale, AZ. pp. 87-100.
Gerba, C. P., C. E. Enriquez, and M. Abbaszadegan. 1993. Infectious disease risks to sanitary sewer personnel.
Proceedings Collection Systems Operation and Maintenance Specialty Conference, Water Environment
Federation,Washington, D.C. pp. 709-718.
Kuennen, R., R. Taylor, B., Wilson, P. Roessler, M. Abbaszadegan, and C.P. Gerba. 1993. Perforn-iance of a
point-of-use water treatment system for treating contaminated drinking water with chemicals and microbes. Ida:
Safety of'Water Disinf ction: Balancing Chemical and Microbial Risks
(G.F. Craun, ed.) pp.563-568.
International Life Sciences Institute, Washington, DC.
Awad, J., C.P. Gerba, and G. Magnuson. 1993. Ultraviolet disinfection for potable reuse. In:
Safety of Water
Disinfection: Balancing Chemical and Microbial Risks.
(G.F. Craun, ed.) pp. 585-589. International Life
Sciences Institute, Washington, DC.
Bradford, S.M., A.W. Bradford, and C.P. Gerba. 1993. Virus transport through saturated soils. In:
Proceedings of the Second Symposium. Wiener Mitteilungen (in English).
112:143-147.
Agricultural
University, Vienna.
Daniel, P., C.P. Gerba, and S. Leonard. 1994.
Cryptosporidium
inactivation: an assessment of methods.
Water Quality Technology Conference Proceedings. American Water Works Association, Denver, CO, pp.
233-242.
Abbaszadegan, M., M.S. Huber, I.L. Pepper, and C.P. Gerba. 1994. Detection of viable
Giardia
cysts in water
samples using polymerase chain reaction. Water Quality Technology Conference Proceedings: American
Water Works Association, Denver, CO, pp. 529-548.
Enriquez, C.E., C.P. Gerba, I.L. Pepper, and M. Abbaszadegan. 1994. Survival of human immunodeficiency
virus (HIV) in water and wastewater. Water Quality'rechnology Conference Proceedings, AWWA, Denver,
CO, pp. 859-869.
Brion, G., C.P. Gerba, and J. Silverstein. 1994. Pathogenic viruses in space: indicators and risks in closed
space environments. SAE Technical Paper Series 941387 presented at 24th International Conference on
Environmental Systems and 5th European Symposium on Space Environmental Control Systems,
Friedrichshafen, Germany, pp. I-10.
Straub, T.M., C.E. Enriquez, V. Enriquez, C.P. Gerba, I.L. Pepper, and J.B. Rose. 1994. Monitoring of
protozoan parasites in sewage biosolids and reclaimed water. In:
Pathogen Assessment and Monitoring of
Biosolids and Wastewater Effluents.
Proceedings of the Conference Seminar, Water Environment Federation,
Chicago, IL, pp. 66-74.
47

 
Cartwright, P.S., and C.P. Gerba. 1995.
Worldwide microbiological concerns and treatments, Water Quality
Association, Nesile, IL. pp. 1-19.
Gerba, C.P., J.B. Rose, and C.N. Haas. Waterborne disease - who is at risk? 1995.
Water Quality Technology
Conference Proceedings (American Water Works Assoc., Denver, CO), pp. 57-71.
Straub
, T.M., C.P. Gerba, X. Zhou,
R. Price, and
M.T. Yahya.
1995. Synergistic inactivation
ofTscherichia
eoli
and MS-2
coliphagc
by chloramine
and cupric chloride
. Water Quality'rechnology Conference
Proceedings
,
American Water Works Assoc., Denver, CO. 231-249.
Quinone , M.J., P. Soto, and C.P. Gerba. 1995. Removal
of Cryptosporidiuni
oocysts and
Giardia
cysts from
wastewater by soil aquifer treatment (SAT) system. In: The Role of Recharge in Integrated Water
Management. Salt River Project, Tempe, AZ. pp. 279-287.
Swarts, M.L., S.M. Carroll, M. Quinonez, R.G. Arnold, and C.P. Gerba. 1995. Effect of wastewater quality on
virus removal by sandy soils. In: The Role of Recharge in Integrated Water Management. Salt River Project,
Tempe, AZ. pp. 289-300.
Wilson, L., G.L. Amy, C.11. Gerba, H. Gordon, B. Johnson, and J. Miller. 1995. Water quality changes during
soil aquifer treatment of tertiary effluent. Water Environ. Research, Washington, DC. 67:371-376.
West, W., P. Daniel, P. Meyerhofer, A. DeGraca, S. Leonard, and C.P. Gerba. 1995. Evaluation of
Cr-yptosporidiuni
removal through high-rate filtration. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American
Water Works Association, pp. 493-504. American Water Works Assoc., Denver, CO.
Enriquez, V., J.B. Rose, C.E. Enriquez and C.P. Gerba, 1995. Occurrence of
Cryptosporidiwn
and
Giardia
in
Secondary and tertiary wastewater effluents. In:
Protozoan Parasites and fVater,
W.B. Betts, D. Casemore, C.
Fricker, 11. Smith, and J. Watkins, eds. pp. 84-86. The Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge.
Crabtree, K.D., C.P. Gerba, J.B. Rose, and C.N. Haas. 1996. Risk assessment of waterborne rotavirus and
coxsackievirus. Water Quality Technology Proceedings, lap. 789-807. American Water Works Association,
Denver, CO.
Carroll, S.M., C.P. Gerba, D.M. Quanrud, and R.G. Arnold. 1996. Comparative removal of coliphagc and
poliovirus from secondary wastewater during soil aquifer treatment (SAT).
Water Reuse Conference
Proceedings, pp 1001-1005. American Water Works Association, Denver, CO.
1=alabi, J.A., C.P. Gerba, and M.M. Karpiscak. 1996. Fate of selected pathogens in a duckweed
(lemna gibba
L.) covered pond.
Water Reuse Conference Proceedings, pp 1071-1080. American Water Works Association,
Denver, CO.
48

 
Quanrud, D.M., P.L. Chipello, S. Carroll, R.G. Arnold, M.H. Conklin, L.G. Wilson, and C.P. Gerba. 1996.
Simulation of
soil aquifer treatment - Determination of reliable water quality benefits and process mechanisms.
Water Quality Technology
Proceedings
,
pp. 1143-1188. American
Water Works
Association
,
Denver, CO.
Enriquez, C.E., J. Sandoval-Garzon, and C.P. Gerba. 1996. Survival, detection, and resistance to disinfection
of enteric adenoviruses.
Water Quality Technology Proceedings, pp. 2059-2086. American Water Works
Association, Denver, CO.
Abbaszadegan, M., P. Stewart, M. LeChevallier, M. Yates, and C.P. Gerba. 1996. Occurrence of enteroviruses
in groundwater and correlation with water quality parameters.
Water Quality Technology Proceedings, pp.
2099-2114. American Water Works Association, Denver, CO.
Gerba, C.P., J.B. Rose, and C.N. Haas. 1996. Quantitative microbial risk assessment for reclaimed wastewater.
Water TECH Proceedings, pp. 254-260. Australian Water and Wastewater Association, Sidney, Australia.
Gerba, C.P., J.B. Rose, and C.N. Ilaas. 1996. Microbial risk assessment: a new tool in water quality
management. In: Preservation of Our World in the Wake of Change (ed: Y. Steinberger) ISEEQS Pub., Vol.
VIB, pp. 732-735, Jerusalem, Israel.
Gerba, C.P. 1997.
What are the current microbiological and public health issues in drinking water? In:
Examining microbes in groundwater, pp. 39-47. American Water Works Assoc., Denver, CO.
Enriquez, C.E., and C.P. Gerba. 1997. Swimming pool water disinfection with copper and silver ions. In:
Water Chemistry and Disinfection: Swimming Pools and Spas (R. Denkewicz, C.P. Gerba, and Q. Hales, Eds.),
pp. 26-30. National Spa and Pool Institute, Alexandria, VA.
Gerba, C.P., C.E. Enriquez, and C. Gerba. 1997. Virus-associated outbreaks in swimming pools. In: Water
Chemistry and Disinfection: Swimming Pools and Spas (R. Denkewicz, C.P. Gerba, and Q. Hales, Eds.), pp. 31-
45, Alexandria, VA.
Denkewicz, R., C.P. Gerba, Q. Hales. 1997. Water chemistry and disinfection: Swimming pools and spas.
National Spa and Pool Institute, Alexandria, VA.
Johnson, D.C., PY, Roessler, M.N. Hasan, and C.P. Gerba. 1997. Evaluation of the removal of pathogenic
parasites by a point-of-use water treatment system. In. International Symposium on Waterborne
Cryptosporidiuni..
(C.R. Bricker, J.L. clancy and P.A. Rochelle, eds), Newport, CA, pp. 291-295. American
Water Works Assoc., Denver, CO.
Stewart, M., M. Yates, M. Anderson, C. Gerba, R. DeLeon, and R. Wolfe. 1997. Modeling the impact of body-
contact recreation on
C;yptosporidium
levels in a drinking water reservoir. International Symposium on
Cryptosporidiuni.
pp. 137-146. C.R. Bricker, J.L. Clancy,and P.A. Rachelle, eds. American Water Works
Assoc., Denver, CO.
49

 
Fox, P., M. Nellor, R. Arnold, K. Lansey, C. Gerba, G. Amy, W. Yanko, R. Baird, M. Reinhard, and S.
Houston. 1997. Investigation of soil aquifer treatment for sustainable water reuse. 8"' Biennial Symposium oil
the Artificial. Recharge of Groundwater, Tempe, AZ. pp. 123-132.
Gerba, C.P., D.C. Johnson, and M.N. Hasan. 1997. Control of microbial contaminates by point-of-use devices:
Future needs and technologies.
WQTC 1996 Proceedings, Boston, MA. 6 pages, un-numbered. AWWA,
Denver, Co.
Rusin, P., J. Rose, C. Haas, and C. Gerba. 1997. Risk assessment of opportunistic bacteria] pathogens in
drinking; water.
WQTC 1996 Proceedings, Boston, MA. 17 pages, un-numbered. AWWA, Denver, CO.
Panelli,
M., D. Johnson, and C.P. Gerba. 1997. Detection of microsporidia in water.
WQTC 1996
Proceedings, un-numbered pages. AWWA, Denver, CO.
Gerba, C.Y., and P. Gerba. 1998. Outbreaks caused by Pseudomonas associated with whirlpool spas. In:
Chemical Dynamics within the pool and spa environment. Q. Hales and R. Denkewicz, eds. pp. 8-18. National
pool and Spa Institute, Alexandria, VA.
Stewart, M., M. Yates, M. Anderson, C. Gerba, R. DeLeon, and R. Wolfe. 1998. Modeling the impact of body-
contact recreation on
Csyptosporidhvn
levels in a drinking water reservoir. International Symposium Oil
Waterborne
Cryptosporicliurn.
pp. 137-146. American Water Works Assoc., Denver, CO.
Johnson, D.C., P.F. Roessler, M.N. Hasan, and C.P. Gerba. 1998. Evaluation of the removal of pathogenic
parasites by a point-of-use water treatment system. International Symposium on Waterborne
Cryptosporidium.
pp. 291-295. American Water Works. Assoc., Denver, CO.
Abbas edegan, M., C.P. Gerba, and M. LeChevallier. 1999. Occurrence of viruses in groundwater: A national
study. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Waterborne Pathogens. AWWA, Denver, CO.
Maas, C.N., D.D. -Andrea, J. Dmochowske, J. Jacangelo, S. Chellam, and C.P. Gerba. 1999. Inactivation of
Legionella pneuniohila
by free chlorine. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Waterborne
Pathogens.
AWWA, Denver, CO.
Haas, C.N., A. Thayyar-Madabusi, J.B. Rose, and C.P. Gerba. 1999. Formulation and validation of a dose-
response model for E.
soli
0157:H7. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Waterborne Pathogens,
AWWA, Denver, CO.
Haas, C.N., D. D=Andrea, J, Drnochowski, J. Jacangelo, S. Chollamans, C.P. Gerba. 1999. Inactivation of
Mycobacter-iinai for-tt.ttia.triz
by free chlorine. Proceedings of the 1999 Water Quality Technology Conference.
AWWA, Denver, CO.
50

 
Dowd, S.E., J.A. Thurston, C.P. Gerba, and I.L. Pepper. 1999. Development of improved methods for
detection and species determination of human pathogenic microsporidia in water. Proceedings of the 1999
Water Quality Technology Conference. AWWA, Deliver, CO.
Siedel, G., C.P. Gerba, and W. Yanko. 1999. Application of molecular methods for the detection of
enteroviruses at recharge facilities. Artificial Recharge and Integrated Water Management. pp. 381-391.
Oswald, A.M., C.P. Gerba, and M.M. Karpiscak. 1999. Removal of enteric and pathogenic organisms from
wastewater by artificial wetlands. Artificial Recharge and Integrated Water Management, pp. 339-348.
Seidel, G., C. Gerba, and W. Yanko. 1999. Application
of molecular methods for
the detection of Non-CPE
enteroviruses at recharge
facilities.
Proceedings of the 12°i Annual Symposium of the Arizona Hydrological
Society.
Casanova, L., C.P. Gerba, and M. Karpiscak. 2000. Chemical and microbial characterization of household
graywater. Proceedings of the Small Drinking and Wastewater
Systems International
Symposium. NSF
International
,
Ann Arbor, MI. pp. 458-463.
Gerba, C.
P., R. Nokes, and M. Karpiscak
.
2000. Reduction of enteric organisms in small scale subsurface flow
constructed wetlands. Proceedings of the Small Drinking and Wastewater Systems International Symposium.
NSF International
, Ann Arbor,
MI.
pp. 210-216.
Alum, A., C.E. Enriqucz, G. Oron, and C.P. Gerba. 2000. Control of viral contamination of reclaimed water
irrigated vegetables by drip irrigation. Proceedings of Water Reuse 2000. Aanerican Water Works Assoc.,
Denver, CO.
Oron, G., R. Armon, R. Mandelbaum, Y. Manor, C. Campos, L. Gillerman, M. Salgot, C. Gerba, 1. Klein, and
C. Enriquez. 2000. Secondary wastewater disposal for crop irrigation with minimal risks. Proceedings of 1"
World Water Congress of the International Water Association. Book 8. Wastewater, Reclamation, Recycling
and Reuse. pp. 315-322. International Water Quality Association. London.
Oswald, A.M., C.P. Gerba, and M.M. Karpiscak. 2000. Removal of enteric microorganisms from secondary
effluent and backwash filter water by artificial wetlands. Proceedings of the I" World Water Congress of the
International Water Association. Book 8. Wastewater, Reclamation, Recycling and Reuse. pp. 142-149.
International Water Quality Association. London.
Oswald, A.M., C. Gerba,
G. Seidel
,
and Q. Hales
.
2000.
Evaluation of swimming pool filtration systems.
Research
in Pool and
Spa Water Chemistry. J. Q. H
ales, ed. pp. 18
-
23.
National Spa and Pool Institute.
Alexandria, VA.
Watt, P.M., D.I. Kennedy, J. Naranjo, J. Sandoval, and C.P. Gerba. 2000. A comparison of the disinfectant
capabilities of various spa products. Research in Pool and Spa Water Chemistry. J. Q. Hales, ed. pp. 71-76.
National Spa and Pool Institute. Alexandria, VA.
51

 
Gerba, C.P. 2000, Chlorine disinfection of on-site systems. pp. 93-101. Proceedings 10°i Northwest On-Site
Wastewater Treatment Short Course and Equipment Exhibition. University of Washington, Seattle.
Gerba, C.P. 2001. Approaches and needs for the development of guidelines and standards for pathogenic
inicroorganisms in biosolids. Proceedings of the Specialized Conference on Sludge Management: Regulation,
Treatment, Utilisation and Disposal. International Water Association. London, UK. pp. 1-8.
Gerba, C.P., I.L. Pepper, and L.F. Whitehead. 2001. A risk assessment of emerging pathogens of concern in the
land application of biosolids. Proceedings of the Specialized Conference on Sludge Management: Regulation,
Treatment, Utilization and Disposal. Intemational Water Association. London, UK. pp. 457-470.
Gerba, C. P., S. Stine, C. Chaidez and I. L. Pepper. 2002. Estimation of total weekly intake of hetertrophic
bacteria in the United States. Bacteria in Drinking Water. pp. 301-304. NSF International. Ann Arbor, MI. pp.
301-304.
Gerba, C. 1'. and K. D. Mena. 2007. Risk assessment of waterborne adenovirr€ses. Proceedings of the First
International Conference on Ozone/UV Light Disinfection. UV Association.
TRADE
,
JOURNALS, POPULAR
MAGAZINES,
OTHER
Gerba, C.P., and J.F. McNabb. 1981. Microbial aspects of groundwater pollution. ASM News 47:326-329.
Gerba, C.P., K.C. Hou, and R.A.
Babincau
.
1981. Pyrogen Control by Charge-Modified Filters.
Pharn'aceutical Ingr., May-July. (2 pages).
Gerba, C.P. 1984. Viruses and the Environment (Book Review), ASM News 50:569.
Gerba, C.P., J.B. Rose, G.A. Torencos, S.N. Singh, L.M. Kelley, B. Keswick, and H.L. DuPont. 1985. Virus
removal during conventional drinking water treatment. EPA Health Effects Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH. pp. I -
4.
Gerba, C. P. 1986. Development of a qualitative pathogen risk assessment methodology for municipal sludge
landfilling.
EPA Office of Water Regulations Standards Document, Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC.
Gerba, C.P., J.B. Rose, R. DeLeon, and S.N. Singh. 1986. Virus analysis of source and treated drinking water
in Puerto Rico. In:
Puerto Rico Pathogenic Organisms Survey Report,
pp. 25-56. Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico.
52

 
Schaub, S.A., and C.P. Gerba. 1988. Guide standard and protocol for testing microbiological water purifiers.
Proceedings of symposium on point-of-use water purifiers. pp. 37-42. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency,
Cincinnati, OH.
Naranjo, J., R. DeLeon, C.P. Gerba, and J.B. Rose. 1989. Monitoring for viruses and parasites in reclairned
water. The Bench Sheet 11:8-10.
Gerba, C.P. 1991. Preface. In:
Virologie des Milieux Ilydriques, (L.
Schwartzbrod, ed.). TEC & DOC -
Lavoisier, Paris.
Gerba, C.P. 1993. Meeting
customer needs
for health.
Soap and Detergent Association Seventh
Symposium,
"Detergents
-
in Depth
, '92", pp. 31-34.
Rose, J. B., C. N. Haas, and C. P. Gerba. 1993. Waterborne pathogens: assessing the risks. Hlth Environ. Digest
7:1-3.
Gerba, C.P, 1993. Microorganisms in water: significance and control. In:
IValer Quality Association Quick
Course I7zforrnalion 't'ext,
pp. 5-12. Water Quality Association, Lisle, IL.
Rose, J.B., C.H. Haas, and C.P. Gerba. 1994. Micro-bias for the public good. Today's Life Science. May
1994, pp. 20-24.
Grohn-iann, G.D., G.J. Logan, P.T. Cox, and C.P. Gerba. 1994. Viruses: the hidden hazard. Today's Life
Sciences, pp. 32-35.
Gerba, C.P. 1995.
The Information Collection Rule. Water Conditioning and Purification
. 36:94-96.
Gerba, C.P., and P.M. Watt. 1997.
Who needs these end-of-faucet anti-microbial purifiers and why?
Water
Conditioning and Purification. 39:70-73.
Johnson, D.C., and C.P. Gerba. 1997. Microsporidia, the next
Cryptosporidiuni?
Water Conditioning and
Purification, 39:116-119.
Gerba, C.P., and J.E. Naranjo. 1997. Point-of-use water treatment devices.
Making sure they do their job.
Water Conditioning and Purification, 39:84-86.
Gerba, C.P. 1999.
Ensuring
safety.
Why the industry needs
to standardize residential pool and spa sanitization
equipment
.
Aqua. 24:75-78.
Janse, A. and C. P. Gerba. 2005. The Germ Freaks' Guide to Outwitting Colds and Flus. Health
Communications, Inc. Deerfield Beach, FL.
Gerba, C. P. 2005. Anti-bacterial Mania. Consumers Digest. 7 pages.
53

 
Karpiscak, M. M., C. P. Gerba, R. Marrero-Oritir and K. R. Riley. 2006. Evaluating water quality. Individual
and small systems in Arizona. Southwest Hydrology. 5(5): 26-27.
PATENTS
Enhanced Disinfection of Microorganisms in Water, Issued 1993.
GRANT FUNDING
Effect of particulate matter on the survival of viruses in seawater, Research Corporation, Recipient, 1972.
Quantitative estuarine and shellfish virus enumeration, NOAA Scagrant, Dept, of Commerce, through
Institutional Grant to Texas A&M University, Co-Investigator, 1974.
New and improved methods for quantitative detection of enteric viruses in potable, reclaimed and natural
waters, Environmental Protection Agency, Co-Investigator, 1974-1979, $420,000.
Photodynamic inactivation of infectious agents in wastewater, IiMC Corporation, Central Engineering
Laboratories, Santa Clara, CA, Co-Investigator, 1974-1975, $ 100,000.
Virus removal from wastewater by land treatment, USDA, ARS, U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory Contract,
Phoenix, AZ, Co-Investigator, 1974-1975.
The role of sediments in the distribution and survival of enteric viruses in the estuarine environment, NOAA
Sea Grant, Dept. of Commerce, through Institutional Grant to Texas A&M University, Associate Project Leader,
1976-1979, $90,000.
Virus analysis of drinking water in Mexico, Eco-Ingenicra, Mexico, Principal Investigator, 1980, $2,800.
Movement and fate of viruses and organic pollutants in ground water during the land treatment of wastewater,
Environmental Protection Agency, Principal Investigator, 1977-1980, $481,372.
Hepatitis A and gastroenteritis viruses in water and shellfish, National Institutes of I-lealth, Principal
Investigator, 1978-1981, $178,514.
Research in applied and environmental virology, AMF/CUNO, Meriden, CI', Principal Investigator, 1980-1982,
$340,000.
Development of management strategies for the assessment and control of viral pollution of coastal waters,
NOAA, Long Term Pollution Effects Program, Dept. of Commerce, Principal Investigator, 1980-1981, $71,522.
54

 
Utilization
of silver and bighead carp
for water
quality improvement
:
virological and bacterial aspects,
Environmental Protection
Agency (
Subcontract from Arkansas
Nish & Wildlife),
Principal Investigator, 1980,
$26,000.
Virus studies of the subsurface,
Environmental Protection
Agency through
Institutional Grant from Rice
University,
Principal Investigator
, 1980-1981, $51,000.
Development of standard methods for the detection of enteric viruses in raw and treated potable water,
Environmental Protection Agency, Co-Investigator, 1980-1981, $71,000.
Services
to screen halogens
for viricidal
properties
,
U.S. Dept. of Defense, Army, Associate Investigator, 1979-
1981, $96,000.
Assessment and control of viral pollution of marine resources, NOAA Seagrant, Dept, of Commerce through an
Institutional Grant from Texas A&M University, Associate Project Leader, 1980-1981, $48,000.
Impact of sewage sludge disposal and dredging on the distribution and cycling of pathogenic human enteric
viruses in shallow coastal waters, NOAA, Ocean Dumping Program, Dept. of Commerce, Associate
Investigator, 1979-1980, $95,775.
Detection of potential viral contaminates in food and water, Dept. of Nutrition and Food Science, Hatch Project,
1981-1984, $30,460.
Virus removal during conventional drinking water treatments, Environmental Protection Agency, Principal
Investigator, 1981-1983, $93,724.
Development of an ELISA test for the detection for fish antibodies directed against human pathogens,
International Development Research Center, Principal Investigator, 1981-1982, $10,800 (Canadian).
Insoluble polymeric contact disinfectants for small water treatment systems, Environmental Protection Agency
through subcontract from State University of New York Research Foundation, Principal Investigator, 1981-
1983, $28,919.
Viral studies of the subsurface, Environmental Protection Agency through subcontract from Rice University,
Principal Investigator, 1982, $13,476.
Renovated water quality from two projects: Dan and Flushing Meadows, United States Binational Science
Foundation, Co-Investigator, 1980-1983, travel of Dr. Gerba to Israel, $2,500.
Rotavirus detection
, The University of Arizona
Biomedical Research Support
,
Principal Investigator, 1981-
1982, $9,300.
55

 
Detection of rotavirus and hepatitis A in water, Environmental Protection Agency, Principal Investigator, 1982-
1984, $117,000.
Development of a model for viral survival and transport in groundwater, Environmental Protection Agency
through subcontract frorn the University of Oklahoma, Principal Investigator, 1982-1983, $99,733.
Training program in ground water microbiology, Jessie Smith Noyes Foundation, Inc., Principal Investigator,
1982-1985, $69,300.
Occurrence; of viruses in water in Colombia, Tinker Foundation, Principal Investigator, 1983, $1,200.
A predictive model for virus transport, Environmental Protection Agency, Principal Investigator, 1983-1986,
$333,058.
Removal of microorganisms by filtration, Tucson Water Reuse Project, Rubel and Halter, Inc., Principal
Investigator, 1983, $10,382.
Virus analysis of groundwater, Arizona Dept. of Health Services, Principal Investigator, 1984, $3,000.
Prediction of virus persistence in Arizona groundwater, The University of Arizona Water Resources Center, Co-
Principal Investigator, 1984-1985, $9,982.
Virus analysis of drinking water in Puerto Rico, Environmental Protection Agency, Principal Investigator, 1984,
$24,421.
Insoluble polymeric contact disinfectants for point-of=use potable water disinfection, Environmental Protection
Agency, Co-Investigator, 1984-1986, $175,000.
Detection of potential viral contaminates in food and water, Dept. of Nutrition and Food Science, Hatch Project,
Principal Investigator, 1984-1987, $46,164.
Analysis of sludge and composted sludge for
microorganisms
,
Erco Division, Ensco Companies, Principal
Investigator, 1985, $23,760.
Casa del Agua: A community water conservation demonstration and evaluation project, Tucson Water and
Puna County, Co-Investigator, 1985-1989, $74,000.
Studies on microbial contamination of groundwater, IBM Corporation, Principal Investigator, 1985-1986,
$23,395.
Viability of parasitic enteric infections in Arizona:
Giardia
and
Cryptosporidiosis,
Co-Investigator, Arizona
Disease Control Research Commission, 1986-1987, $79,281.
56

 
Water disinfection by material surface contact, U.S. Aid Program in Science and 'T'echnology, Principal
Investigator, 1986-1989, $149,878.
Development of gene probes for rapid detection of enteric viruses in water and sewage, U.S, Aid Program in
Science and Technology, Principal Investigator, 1986-1989, $149,651.
Salary support for Dr. Susan Stramer, Centers for Disease Control, Principal Investigator, 1985-1987, $31,958.
Detection and isolation of
Qyptosporidiuni, Giardia,
and
En.tamoeba from
waters throughout the United States,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Co-Investigator, 1986-1989, $160,000.
Rotavirus survival and transport in the subsurface, U.S. Environn-iental Protection Agency, Principal
Investigator, 1986-1988, $199,946.
Gene probes for enteric virus detection, The University of Arizona Biomedical Research Support Grant,
Principal Investigator, 1986-1987, $6,995.
Surface-chemical factors affecting transport of bio-colloids in subsurface porous media, U.S. Geological
Survey, Co-Principal Investigator, 1987-1989, $257,748.
Development of ultrascnsitive gene probes for the rapid detection of enteric viruses in water and food, Arizona
Technology Development Corporation, Co-Principal Investigator, 1988-1989, $150,000.
Development of methodology for detection of enteric viruses in food and water, Dept. of Nutrition and Food
Science, Hatch Proicct, Principal Investigator, 1988-1991, $41,929.
Rapid detection of enteric viruses in water using gene probes, Arizona Disease Control Research Commission,
Co-Investigator, 1987-1988, $24,442.
The effect of liquid smoke on
Listeria monocytogenes,
Bar S Foods, Co-Principal Investigator, 1987-1988,
$10,000.
Use of metal ions for water disinfection, Tarn-Pure, U.S.A., Principal Investigator, 1987-1989, $42,500.
Effectiveness of hand washing for the removal of contaminating enteric viruses and
Giardia,
Dial Corp., Co-
Investigator, 1987-1989, $19,285.
Ionic purification of water, Sigma Products, Inc., Principal Investigator, 1988-1989, $5,750.
Evaluation of a copper-silver electrolytic unit with chlorine under swimming pool conditions, U.S. Army,
Principal Investigator, 1988, $9,950.
57

 
Evaluation of a thermal-activated carbon microbiological water purifier, Regal Ware. Principal Investigator,
1988, $7,200.
Determination of bacteriophage in deep soil samples and their ecological significance, DuPont de Nemours and
Company,
Principal Investigator
,
1988-1989, $19,943.
Efficiency of copper, polyvinylchloride, chlorinated-polyvinylcliloride and galvanized pipes on the removal of
MS-2 coliphage, International Copper Research Association, Co-Investigator, 1988-1989, $49,142.
Efficiency of
reverse osmosis membranes in virus removal
,
Shaklee Corporation
,
Principal Investigator, 1988,
$5,000.
Agricultural sludge
reclamation
, Pima County, Co-Investigator, 1988-1990, $23,000.
Determination of the microbiological shelf life of refrigerated sandwiches, Campbell Food Research Institute,
Principal Investigator, 1988, $3,150.
Evaluation of gene probe technology for the detection of human immunodeficiency virus in hospital wastewater
concentrates, National Science Foundation, Co-Investigator, 1989-1990, $29,994.
Gene Probe detection of pathogens
in sludge-amended soils, U.S. Geological
Survey, Co-
Principal
Investigator,
1989-1991, $174,693.
Demonstrations of nanolilter method for treating Colorado River water, Consolidated Utilities, Co-Investigator,
1989-1990, $33,575.
Microbiological evaluation of diapers, solid waste, and leachate from the Fresh Kill landfill, Proctor and
Gamble Co., Co-Principal Investigator, 1989-1990, $85,268.
Determination of the inactivation kinetics of poliovirus after exposure to potassium permanganate, Carus
Chemical Co., Principal Investigator, 1989-1990, $18,600.
Assessment of model equations for predicting survival and transport of microorganisms in groundwater in
Arizona, Water Resources Center, Co-Principal Investigator, 1989-1990, $8,770.
Inactivation of MS-2 coliphage and
Legionella
by potassium permanganate, Carus Chemical Co., Principal
Investigator, 1989, $10,950.
Virus removal by a wastewater treatment and recycling system, Thetford Systems, Inc., Principal Investigator,
1989, $15,000.
Microbiological characterization of hotel bathrooms, Brushguard, Inc., Principal Investigator, 1989,
$6,950.
58

 
Microbiological evaluation of compost containing disposable diapers, Co-Principal Investigator, Proctor and
Gamble Co., 1989-1990, $32,985.
Investigations into the invasive properties of
Canipylobacter,
Arizona Disease Research Commission,
Co-investigator, 1959-1991, $57,000.
Evaluation of the microbial
efficacy
of a porcelain cleaner
,
Musson Associates
,
Principal Investigator, 1989,
$6,950.
The role of soil aquifer treatment
in wastewater reel amati on/reu se
:
hydrological, chemical and microbiological
considerations
,
Salt River Project and Tucson Water, Co-Principal Investigator, 1990-1991, $283,665.
Subsurface transport of biocolloids, National Institute of Health, Principal Investigator, 1990-1992, $124,340.
Molecular methods for evaluation of microbial quality of groundwater, USDA Cooperative State Research
Service, 1990-1992, $79,516.
Underground fate and transport of microorganisins, Water Resource Research Center. Co-Principal Investigator,
1990-1991, $33,637.
I luman enteric viral contamination of groundwater, Dept. of Environmental Protection, State of New Jersey,
Principal Investigator, 1990-1991, $48,325.
Health risks associated with bacterial and viral pathogens in groundwater, Arizona Disease Research
Commission, Co-principal Investigator, 1990-1993, $85,600.
Research support for studies on solid waste, Procter and Gamble Co., Principal Investigator, 1990, $3,000.
Development of non-halogen disinfectants for swimming pools, 1990, Olin Corporation, Principal Investigator,
1990-1991, $43,650.
Underground fate and transport of microorganisms, Water Resources Research Center, Co-principal
Investigator, 1991-1992, $40,531.
Evaluation of the hydraulic, chemical, and microbiological aspects of soil-aquifer treatment (SAT) during
wastewater reelamation/reuse: laboratory and field studies, Tucson Water and the Salt River Project, Co-
principal Investigator, 1992-1993, $137,951.
Detection of viable
Giarclia
cysts in water by polymerase chain reaction, Metropolitan Water District of
Southern California, Co-principal Investigator, 1991-1992, $52,809.
'T'ransport of subsurface bacteria in porous media, Dept. of Energy, Co-Investigator, 1991-1993, $300,100,
59

 
Microbial contaminate removal/inactivation by Asian point-of-use treatment system, Amway Corporation,
Principal Investigator, 1991-1992, $104,000.
Studies on viruses and parasites in reclaimed water, Microbial Analytical Laboratory, Principal Investigator,
1985-1993, $972,809.
Delineation of wellhead protection zones: considerations of virus transport, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Principal Investigator, 1991-1994, $200,000.
Determination of the inactivation kinetics of hepatitis A virus and
Giardia
cysts after exposure to potassium
permanganate, Carus Chemical Company, Principal Investigator, 1992, $52,000.
Transport of biocolloids in the subsurface, National Institute of Environmental Health Science, Co-principal
Investigator, 1992-1995, $425,000.
Agricultural sludge reclamation, Pima County Wastewater Division, Co-investigator, 1991-1992, $83,793.
Multi-laboratory evaluation of the guide standard and protocol for testing microbiological water purifiers, U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Principal Investigator, 1992-1994, $164,964.
In use antibacterial dish detergent efficacy study
,
L and F Products,
Principal Investigator
, 1992-1993, $35,716.
Characterization of the microflora of households
and estimation
of the impact of disease transmission by
surfaces, Co-Principal Investigator L and F Products, 1992-1993, $66,270.
Stability of HIV viral RNA under environmental conditions, Co-investigator, National Science Foundation,
1992-1993, $50,000.
Incidence of pathogens in Mamala Bay: i-nolecular and risk assessment, Co-Principal Investigator, Mamala Bay
Commission, 1993-1995, $350,000
Physical, chemical, and biological properties of the Schmutzdecke, Co-Investigator, U. S. Department of
Agriculture, 1993-1996,
$180,000.
Microbial risk assessment for drinking water, Co-investigator, American Water Works Research Foundation,
1993-1995, $200,000.
Studies on the inactivation of
Giardia
by p1-l, pressure, and disinfection, Principal Investigator, CDM
Engineering, 1993, $59,000.
Solas Water System 't'esting, Solas Corporation, Principal Investigator, 1993-1994, $12,000.
60

 
SC Johnson Wax R&D Fellowship Grant, Johnson Wax, Principal Investigator, 1993-1994, $20,000.
Biocolloid Transport in Groundwater. United States-Israel Binational Agricultural Research and Development
Fund, Co-Principal Investigator. 1993-1995, $250,000.
Application of PCR Technologies for virus detection in groundwater. American Water Works Research
Foundation. Co-Principal Investigator. 1993-1997, $400,000.
Soil treatability pilot studies to design and model a soil aquifer treatment system. American Water Works
Research Foundation. Co-investigator. 1994-1995, $224,000.
Field Tracer- Experiments at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. University of'T'ennessee. Co-investigator. 1994.
$5,000.
Evaluation of a potable POU. Sweetwater Inc., Principal Investigator, 1994, $19,000.
Risk Assessment of a Distillation Water Treatment System, In--sink-erator, 1994, $57,000.
Microsporidium Reduction Testing. Amway Corp., Principal Investigator, 1995, $13,000.
Efficacy of chlorine bleach disinfection on surfaces against
Gica°&a,
Principal Investigator, Clorox Corp., 1995,
$13,250.
Rapid PCR based monitoring of infectious enteroviruses in drinking water. Co-investigator, Amer. Water
Works Research Foundation, 1995-1997, $191,896.
Comparison of POU devices
for
microbial removal, Principal Investigator, Sweetwater Inc., 1995, $53,000.
Evaluation of point-of-use water treatment devices for outdoor use, L.L. Bean, Inc. Principal Investigator, 1995,
$5,000. Evaluation of tablet formulations for water- disinfection, Principal Investigator, Sweetwater, Inc.,
1995,
$10,000.
Optimal Secondary Wastewater Reuse with Minimal Environmental Risks. United States-Israel Binational
Agricultural Research Development Fund, Co-Principal Investigator, 1996-1999, $339,000.
Enter Pathogen Reduction by Artificial Wetlands. Wyoming; Water Resources Research Center, Principal
Investigator, 1996-1998, 5126,350.
Quantitative microbial
risk assessment
of foods. Co-investigator. $23, 206. International Life Science Institute,
1997-1998.
Development of low cost
indicators of viruses and parasites
on foods,
Principal Investigator
, $18,500, USDA,
1996-1998.
61

 
Investigation of Soil Aquifer Treatment, Co-investigator, $400,000, Amer. Water Works Research Foundation,
and cities of Phoenix and Tucson, 1997-1998.
Evaluation of the economics and public health benefits from water chlorination for cholera using risk
assessment, Co-Principal Investigator, $90,000, Chlorine Chemistry Council, 1996-1997.
Inactivation efficiencies of emerging
waterborne
pathogens by chemical disinfection process
. Co-investigator.
An-ier. Water Works Res. Foundation, 1998-2000, $250,000.
Investigation of soil aquifer treatment, Co-investigator, EPA, $1,500,000, 1998-2002.
Residential graywater systems, Co-investigator, CASA, $16,413, 1998-2000.
Molecular detection of pathogens in irrigation water and their significance, Principal investigator, USDA,
$275,000, 1999-2001.
Impact of wildlife on enteric pathogens in a constructed wetland, Co-investigator, City of Phoenix, 2000-2001,
$48,651.
Microbial risk analysis of iceberg lettuce due to manure application. Co-investigator. Arizona Iceberg Lettuce
Research Council. $40,978. 2000-2002.
Effect of hetrotrophic plate count bacterial populations in drinking water. Co-investigator. NSF Water Quality
Center. $50,000. 2000-2002.
Use of risk modeling to determine the benefit of topical antimicrobial products. Soap and Detergent
Association. Co-investigator. $20,000. 2000-2002.
Virus transport through soil. U.S. Dept. of Interior. Co-investigator. $12,000. 2000-2001
Measurement of Hormonal Activity and Volume Contribution of Treated Wastewater in Water from Wells
along the Santa Cruz. U.S. Dept. of Interior. Co-investigator. $12,700. 2001-2002.
Microbial risk analysis of water in the production of produce in Arizona. Co-PI. USDA. $525,000. 2000-2003.
Assessment of bacterial contamination of oysters. Co-Pl. USDA. $1,200,000. 2001-2004.
Role of irrigation methods on microbial food safety. Co-Pi. FDA. $525,000. 2001-2004.
GiardialCly,Utosporidiuni
transport and fate during subsurface infiltration: integrated laboratory and field study.
Co-1'I. EPA. $519,725. 2001-2004.
62

 
I3ioaerosol generation from biosolids. Co-PI. NSF Water Quality Center. $60,000. 2001-2004.
Occurrence of emerging pathogens in the waters of Arizona. P.I. NSF Water Quality Center and State of
Arizona. $200,000. 2003-2005
Survival of the SARS virus in water and wastewater. P. I. NSF Water Quality Center. $10,000. 2003-2004.
Development of an infectivity assay for norovirus in cells. Co-PI. American Water Works Research Foundation.
$400,000. 2004-2007.
Occurrence of viruses on f6mites in work environments. Pl. Clorox Company. $52,000. 2004-2005.
Microbial quality in individual and small water systems in Arizona. PL NSF Center for Water Quality and the
State of Arizona. $200,000. 2004-2006.
Development of a Ct for chlorine for enteroviruses. PI. U.S, Environmental Protection Agency. $20,000. 2005.
Adenovirus and norovirus occurrence in sewage discharges. Pl. Geosyntec. $38,000. 2005.
Virus removal from Combined Sewage overflows. PI. CH2M Hill. $20,000. 2005.
Occurrence of viruses on fomites in public facilities. PI. Clorox Company. $35,000. 2005.
Assessment of a thermal point of use device for iicrobial treatment of water. PI. Johnson Research. $28,000.
Center for Advancing Microbial Risk Assessment. Co-investigator. U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency/Department of Homeland Security. $1,100,000. 2005-2010.
Disinfectants in disease reduction in public schools. P.I. Clorox Company. $224,000. 2005-2006.
Occurrence of bacteria in liquid soap. P.I. DOJO Industries. $28,000, 2006.
Control of
Naegleria fbwleri
in ground water in Arizona. P.I. NSF Water Quality Center and the State of
Arizona. $185,000. 2006-2008.
Development of a universal microbial concentrator. Co-PI. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. STAR
Grant Program. $450,000. 2006-2009.
Survival of prions in biosolids. PI. NSF Water Quality Center. $140,000. 2006-2009.
Development of an ozone/UV light disinfection system. P.I. NSF Water Quality Center/Vortex 'T'
echnologies.
$78,000. 2006-2007.
63

 
Development of new disinfectant technologies. P.I. The Clorox Company $84,000. 2006.
Microbiology of home vs. work offices. P.I. The Clorox Company $59,000. 2007-2008.
Evaluating proposed operational practices for control
of Naegleria fowleri
in Arizona's Public Drinking Water
systems. Co-investigator. Arizona Water Institute/City of Peoria $58,028. 2008.
A new generation of anti-micriobial materials. Ncxra. $20,000. 2007
Microbial contamination of hospital scrubs. P. 1. Molnlycke I-lealth Care, Inc. $9,000. 2007.
New Generation of water treatment for the developing world. P. 1. Vestgaard. $104,000. 2007.
Assessment of Lumilife Systems. P. I. Lumilife. $8,000, 2007.
Evaluation of a foaming hand product formulation in preventing the transfer of rhinovirus. P. 1. Procter and
Gamble Company. $31,000. 2007.
Environmental microbial assessment of fomites. P.I. Microban. $14,000. 2007
Assessment of the microbial contamination of vacuum cleaners. Oreck. $14,500. 2007.
INSTRUCTION
FORMAL COURSES TAUGHT AT BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE
Environmental Virology (3 units) (1978-1980)
FORMAL COURSES TAUGI- T AT THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA
Food Microbiology (3 units) (1981-1990) (100% effort)
Food Microbiology Laboratory (1 unit) (1981-1990) (100% effort)
Food Safety (2 units) (1981-1988) (10-50% effort)
Advanced Food Science (3 units) (1988-1991) (10% effort)
Groundwater Pollution Microbiology (3 units) (1982) (90% effort)
Introduction to Virology (3 units) (1986-1987) (10% effort)
64

 
Environmental Microbiology (3 units) (1992-1997) (15-20% effort)
Environmental Microbiology Laboratory (2 units) (1992-
) (50% effort)
Environmental Biotechnology (2 units) (1993- 2001 ) (40% effort)
Pollution Science (3 units) (1994-
) (40% effort)
Risk Assessment (3 units) (2005-
) (25% effort)
SHORT COURSES TAUGHT AT OTHER UNIVERSITIES
(These courses are usually
1-2 weeks in
length)
Virus and Parasite Detection in Reclaimed Water.
Mexico City, 1988 (Sponsored by the World Bank and Pan
American Health Association)
Methods for the Detection of Viruses in the Environment. Cochabamba, Bolivia, 1989. (Sponnsored by the
University of San Simon)
Application of Biotechnology to the Detection of Viruses, Parasites, and Bacteria in the Environment. Culiacan,
Mexico, 1990. (Sponsored by the University of Sinaloa)
Detection of Parasites, Viruses and Bacteria in Water and Wastewater. Santiago, Chile, 1991. (Sponsored by
the University of Chile and the American Society for Microbiology)
Applications of Biotechnology to the Detection of Enteric Microorganisms in the Environment. Panama City,
Panama, 1992 (Sponsored by the University of Panama and the United States Agency for International
Development)
Advances in the Detection of Enteric Bacteria, Viruses, and Parasites in Water and Wastewater, Maracaibo,
Venezuela, Sept., 1992. (Sponsored by the University ofZulia).
Virus and Parasite Detection in water and Wastewater. Buenos Aires, Argentina, July, 1993 (Sponsored by the
University of Buenos Aires and the International Life Sciences Institute).
Molecular methods for the Detection of Microorganisms in water, San Paulo, Brazil, August, 1994, University
of San Paulo.
Detection of Microorganisms in Water and Food. University of Panama, Panama City, Panama, May, 1997.
(Sponsored by the University of Panama)
65

 
Microbial Detection in Water and Environmental Microbiology. Univerdidad del Valle, Guatemala City,
Guatemala. Feb. 25-28, 2000. (Sponsored by USDA, USAID, Merck, Procter and Gamble, and Universidad
del Valle).
Environmental Microbiology. University of Panama. Panama City, Panama. February, 2005. (Sponsored by the
American Society for Microbiology Latin American Lectureship Program).
Quantitative Microbial Risk Assessment. University of Sao Paulo, Brazil. June 14-16, 2005.
"Transmission of Pathogens through the Environment. November 29-December 1, 2005. University of Sonora.
Hermosillo, Mexico.
PREPARATION OF INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS
Prepared the first training manual in Spanish on methods for the detection of viruses in water
"
Manual de
Vigilancia do Virus Entericos en el Agua"
(R.C. DeLeon,
C.P. Gerba and J.B. Rose) under the sponsorship of
the World Bank
and Pan American Health Association
.
This has since been used in numerous training courses
in South America at various universities.
Preparation of a laboratory manual with I. Pepper- entitled "Environmental Microbiology Laboratory".
Published in 1995 by Academic Press.
Aided in preparation of manual for training course in "Water Microbiology for the 21 st Century" which has
been used iii training courses at Macquarre University (Sydney, Australia, Sept., 1993), the University of
Washington (Seattle, March, 1994) and the University of York (York, England, Sept., 1994).
Designed and prepared wall posters for laboratory training in Environmental Microbiology "Procedure for the
Concentration and Detection of Enteric Viruses in Water", "Detection of Enteroviruses by the Polymerase Chain
Reaction", and "Procedure for the Concentration and Detection of
Giardia
and
Cr°ypoaporiditan
Oocysts".
Preparation of textbook with 1. Pepper, and M. Brusseau, entitled "Pollution Science". Published in 1996 by
Academic Press. Preparation of textbook Environmental Microbiology with R. Mier and I.L. Pepper, published
2000 by Academic Press.
INSTRUCTIONAL VIDEOS
Prepared instructional video "Environmental Microbiology Laboratory" for training in methods for the detection
of enteric viruses and parasites in water. 1991.
Participated in preparation of instructional video "Cleaning Products .... In Our Homes, In Our Environment"
under sponsorship of The Soap and Detergent Association and the University of Ohio. 1992,
66

 
Participated in preparation of instructional video "The World's Largest Landfill: A multidisciplinary
Investigation". Sponsored by Proctor and Gamble and the Council for Solid Waste Solutions.
OTHER
NITS (Mier) 470, food Microbiology selected by Arizona Ambassadors, a student volunteer organization that
assists the
Office of Admissions to provide prospective students a positive teaching experience. 1989.
Participated in College of Agriculture "Horizons Unlimited" Program 1989-1995. A one-week course to
provide high school students with an introduction to college level instruction.
Participated
1989-present
in the Underg
raduate Biology Research. Program, Th
e University of Arizona. This
program is
designed to
provide undergraduates with an interest in research to work in the laboratories
of faculty.
LIST OF THESES AND DISSER'T'ATIONS DIRECTED
1.
LaBelle, Raymond. Ph.D., 1979.
The role of sediment in the ecology of enteric viruses in the marine
environment.
Systems Analyst. Honeywell Corp., Houston, TX
2.
Smith, Eric.
Ph.D., 1980.
Development of a method for detection of rotavirus in water.
Professor of
Microbiology, University of Texas Medical School at Galveston, TX.
3.
Hurst, Christian. Ph.D., 1980. Viral detection and persistence during the land treatment of sludge and
wastewater. Environmental Virologist, Risk Reduction Laboratory, U.S. Environn-iental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, OH. Retired.
4.Lerda, Katherin S. Ph.D., 1982. Adsorption of viruses to charge-modified silica. University of
Housston, Houston, TX.
5.
Hurst, Pei-Tung Liew. Ph.D., 1982.
Development and evaluation of an enzyme-linked immuno-sorbent
assay for the detection of viruses from wastewater. Senior Group Leader, Dames and Moore,
Environmental Consulting Engineers. Cincinnati, OH.
6.
Soria, Gary A. Toranzos.
M.S., 1983. Development of a microporous filter method for concentration of
rotavirus from tap water. Professor, Dept, of Biology, University of Puerto Rico, Rio Piadras, PR.
7.
Bassous, Marlene.
M.S., 1983
.
Use of
dyes and proteins as indicators of virus adsorption to soils.
Clinical Laboratory Supervisor, VA.
S.
Yates, Marylynn V. Ph.D., 1984. Virus
persistence in groundwater. Professor and Chairperson,
Department of
Environmental Science
,
Univ. of Calif., Riverside, CA.
67

 
9.
Toranzos, Gary A. Ph.D., 1985. Occurrence of enteric viruses in drinking water in South America.
Professor, Dept. of Biology, University of Puerto Rico, Rio Piadras, PR.
10.
Musial, Coral A. Ph.D., 1985. Development of a method for the detection of
Cryptosporidiuin
in water
and selected studies on hepatitis A virus. Physician, Dept. of Infectious Disease, George Washington
University, St. Louis.
11.
Mullinax, Rebecca L. M.S., 1985. Isolation of enteric viruses from the recreational waters of Oak
Creek. Research Associate, University of Calif. at Davis, CA.
12.
Rose, Joan B. Ph.D., 1985. Virus removal during conventional drinking water treatment. Professor,
Dept. Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State University, East Lansing
13.
Payne, Holly. M.S., 1985. Development of methods for enteric virus detection in freshwater clams.
Quality Control Supervisor, Soufer Foods, NC.
14.
Margolin, Aaron B. Ph.D., 1986. Use of cDNA-blot hybridization techniques for detection of enteric
viruses in water. Professor and Head, Dept. of Microbiology, University of New Hampshire, Durham,
NH.
15.
Badaway, Amin S. Ph.D. Survival and detection of enteric viruses on vegetables. Professor, Mosul,
Iraq.
16.
Thurman, Robert. Ph.D., 1987.
Mechanisms of virus inactivation on modified soil surfaces. Associate
Professor, Australian Catholic University Ballorat, Victoria.
17.
Sun, Gwoshing. M.S., 1986. Gray water reuse for irrigation.
18.
Madore, Mary. M.S., 1986. Resistance to
Cryptosporidhvn
to chloride disinfection.
19.
Grondin, Gerry. M.S., 1987. (Co-advisor).
Modeling virus transport in ground water. National
Groundwater Modeling Center, 01
4
.
20.
bayed, Dima. M.S., 1986. Methods for the isolation of oocysts of
Crypto.sparidiuni
from sludge and
Giardia
cysts from stool. Ph.D. Research Microbiologist. Phoenix,
AZ.
21.
Bradford, Alan. M.S., 1987. (Co-advisor) Transport of MS-2 virus through saturated soil columns.
Working for a bioremediation company in Irvine, CA.
22.
Messina, Maria Cipolla.
M.S., 1989. The effect of liquid smoke on
Listeria
Monocytogenes.
Working
for a biotechnology company in New Jersey.
68

 
23.
Landeen, Lee Kevin. M.S., 1989. Inactivation
of Legionella pneuniophila
by copper, silver ions and
free chlorine.
Working for a biotechnology company in San Diego, CA.
24.
Manthriratna, Gothami Anoma. M.S., 1989. Efficacy of handwashing as an aid in the control of
rotavirus and
Giar dia
transmission.
25.
Kroeger, "Thomas William.
M.S., 1989. (Co-advisor) Hydrophobic partitioning of the bacteriophage
MS-2. Dept, of Water Resources, State of Wisconsin.
26.
Stocking, Kristin.
M.S., 1989. (Co-advisor) Adsorption of MS-2 bacteriophage to silica.
Hydrologist,
City of Tucson, AZ.
27.
Richardson, Kenneth James. Ph-D,, 1989. Use of nucleic acid probes on a nonradioactive labeling
system for the detection of enteroviruses in water. Lawyer.
28.
DeLeon,
Ricardo
. Ph.D., 1989. Use of gene
probes and an application method for the detection of
rotaviruses in water. Head
,
Microbiology
,
Metropolitan
Water District, LaVerne, CA.
29.
Hinkle, Stephen.
M.S., 1990. (Co-Advisor)
Modeling colloid transport in saturated porous media: an
assessment of the importance of pH and kinetics in virus transport.
30.
Cassels, Jenna Marie.
M.S., 1990. Inactivation
of Naegleria.fowleri
amoebas by copper, silver and
chlorine.
Research Microbiologist, MBX Corporation, Tucson, AZ
31.
Luedeman, Rene Annette. M.S., 1990. (Co-advisor)
Development of in
vitro
primary cell cultures
from the penaeid shrimp,
penaeus styhrostris and penaeus vannamei
and evaluation of a potential
application.
Research Associate, University. of Arizona, Tucson, AZ,
32.
Soares, Ana Cristina Iiermino.
M.S., 1990.
Occurrence of enteroviruses and
Giardia
cysts in sewage
sludge before and after anaerobic digestion.
33.
Zhou
,
Xia.
M.S., 1991. Inactivation of
Tscherichia coli
and coliphage MS-2 by chloramine and copper.
Working for a biotechnology company in
Los Angeles, CA.
34.
Kinoshita, Takashi.
M.S., 1991. Effects of pH and hydrophobicity on the transport of viruses and
bacteria in saturated media.
Consulting Engineering Firm in Japan.
35.
Chiou, lpeng.
M.S., 1991, (Co-advisor) Inactivation
ofListeria inonoe.ytogenes
by copper, silver ions
and free chlorine.
Microbiologist, Hunts Foods, Los Angeles, CA.
36.
Straub, Timothy Mark.
M.S., 1991
.
Inactivation of bacteriophages MS-2 and PRDI and poliovirus
type I in Pima clay loam and
Braito sandy loam soils amended with anaerobically digested sewage
sludge
.
Research Scientist
,
Battelle Labs Northwest. Richmond, WA.
69

 
37,
Abbaszadegan, Morteza. Ph.D., 1991. Detection of
Giardia
cysts by cDNA probe and application to
water samples.
Professor, Dept. of Environmental Engineering, Arizona State University, Tempe, A%.
38.
I-Iuber,
Mary Susan. M.S., 1992. Occurrence of enteric viruses in disposable diapers
from three
landfills.
39.
L,enczewsld, Melisa E.
M.S., 1993. Comparative transport ofbacteriophage and microspheres in an
aquifer under forced-gradient conditions. Associate Professor, Dept. of Geology, University of Northern
Illinois.
40.
Straub, Timothy Mark. Ph.D., 1993. (Co-advisor). Detection of enteroviruses and hepatitis A virus in
sludge and sludge amended soil using the polymerase chain reaction. Research Scientist, Battelle I..,abs
Northwest. Richmond, WA.
41.
Hasan
,
M.N., M.S. 1994. Evaluation of a microbial water purifier for inactivation
/
removal of viruses,
Giarclia
lainbla
cysts, and
Cryptospor
idiun?
oocysts
,
Project Officer
,
American Water Works Research
Foundation, Denver, CO.
42.
Enriquez
,
Carlos. Ph.D., 1994. Detection and Survival of Selected Viruses in Water
.
Research
Scientist, Clorox
Company,
Pleasanton, CA.
43.
Ma, Ju-Fang. Ph.D., 1995. Development of methods for concentration and detection of enteroviruses in
water. Physician, NY.
44.
Reynolds, Kelly A. Ph.D., 1995. Detection of enteroviruses in marine waters using RT-PCR. Research
Assistant Scientist, The University of Arizona, Dept. of Soil, Water and Environmental Science.
45.
Meng. Q.S. 1995. Comparative inactivation of enteric adenovirus, poliovirus, and coliphages by
ultraviolet irradiation.
46.
Johnson, Dana C. Ph.D., 1996. The fate of
Giarcha
and
Cryptosporicliuun
in marine water.
Microbiologist. Austin, `1'X
47.
Crabtree, Kristina D. Ph.D., 1996. Risk assessment of virus in water. Assistant Professor. College of
Public Health, University of Texas, El Paso, TX.
48.
Asthana, Seema, M.S. 1996. Influence of hydrocarbons on the virulence factors associated with
I'udonionas aerugin.osa,
Senior Research Assistant, Gen-Probe, San Francisco, CA.
49.
Carroll, Scan M.
M.S., 1996. Evaluations of virus removal by sandy soils during soil-aquifer treatment
using indigenous bacteriophage as indicator organisms. Consulting Engineering Firm, Boulder, CO.
70

 
50.
Falabi, Jeanne A. M.S., 1996. Pathogen removal by duckweed
(I emn.a gibb a
L.) - covered pond.
51.
Vinlvan, Edlin Artruz.
M.S., 1996. Survival of microbial indicators in a constructed wetland.
52.
Panclli, Manucla.
M.S., 1996. Concentration and detection of
Septata intestinalis
in water. Instructor
at a junior college, Dallas, TX.
53.
Thurston, Jeanette Ann.
M.S., 1997. Fate of pathogenic and indicator microorganisms in two
subsurface multispecies constructed wetlands. Research Scientist, Agricultural Research Service,
USDA, Lincoln, NE.
54.
Kamper, Matthew Frederic.
M.S., 1997. The occurrence of microsporidia in environmental waters.
55.
Nokes, Rita Lynn,
M.S., 1998. Reduction of enteric viruses in small scale, subsurface flow constructed
wetlands.
Graduate Student, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL.
56.
Papp, Julie Dawn.
M.S., 1998. The concentration of animal waste to the microbial load of municipal
solid waste. Reserved Technician, City of Hope, Los Angeles, CA.
57.
Sabalos, Constantine Marc.
M.S., 1998. Detection of enteric viruses in treated wastewater sludge using
cell culture and molecular methods.
Microbiologist. Biotechnology Company, Tucson, AZ.
58.
Manshadi, Faezch Delhghan.
M.S., 1998. Occurrence of indicator and pathogenic enteric
microorganisms in natural wetlands. Research Associate, Arizona State University.
59,
Watson, Suzanne Michelle. M.S., 1999. Bacteria] Survival during laundering; with and without
disinfectants.
Microbiologist East Bay Municipal District, Oakland, CA.
60.
Mahalahabis, Madhumita.
M.S., 1999. Detection of infectious pohovirus by multiple passage ICC-PCR
and cell culture.
Graduate student, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
61.
Chaidez, Quiroz Cristobal. Ph.D., 1999. Risk assessment of selected opportunistic pathogens in
drinking water: Microbiologist, Centro do Investigacion en Alimentacion y Desarrollo, Culican, Mexico.
62.
Quinonez-Diaz, Maria de J. Ph.D., 1999. Removal of pathogens and indicator organisms by natural
wetlands.
Microbiologist.
Centro de Investigacion on Alimentacion y Desarrollo, Culiacan, Mexico.
63.
Karim, Mohammad R. Ph.D., 1999. Survival of indicator bacteria and enteric pathogens in wetlands.
Research Microbiologist, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Cincinnati, 014.
64.
Watt, Pamela.
M.S., 1999. Research
Specialist
,
Agricultural Research
Service, USDA, Salinity Labs,
Riverside, CA.
71

 
65.
Sanchez, Luis R., Ph.D. 1999. Pathogen removal in diary wastewater using a wastewater constructed
treatment system with wetland cells. Quality Control Supervisor, produce company, Los Angeles, CA.
66.
Gramos, Dawn M. M.S. 2000. Inactivation of selected enteric viruses using ultraviolet light.
Hazardous Waste Risk Manager. U.S. Dept, of Defense. Kwajalein Atoll, Marshall Islands.
67.
John, David.
M.S. 2000. Inactivation
of E'neephalitozoon i
nleslimdi
.s
by chlorine and ultraviolet light.
Research Associate, University of South Florida.
68.
Vladich, Frank, M.S. 2000. Development of a method for concentration of microsporidia from water.
Research Specialist, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ.
69.
Vidalcs, Juan A. Ph.D. 2001.
Removal of viruses and pollution indicators in constructed wetlands.
Professor, Univ. of Monterrey,
Mexico.
70.
Alum, Absar, Ph.D. 2001. Control of viral contamination of reclaimed irrigated vegetables by drip
irrigation.
Research Associate, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ.
71.
Thurston, Jeanette A. Ph.D., 2001. Occurrence of human pathogens microsporidia in irrigation water
and ultraviolet light and chlorine inactivation of enteric adenovirus type 40 and feline calicivirus.
Research Scientist, Agricultural Research Service, Lincoln, NE.
72.
Orosz-Coghlan, Patricia. A., M.S. 2001. Impact of wildlife on
Fscherich.ia coli
in a constructed wetland.
Senior Research Specialist, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ.
73.
Crenshaw, Tristen. N. M.S., 2002. Survival of enteric bacteria in chicken manure utilized as vegetable
crop fertilizer. Research Specialist, University of Arizona.
74.
Carreon, Joesph. D. M.S., 2003 Risk of infection by Campylobacter, Salmonella, and Norwalk virus in
commercially grown oysters: a novel application of quantitative microbial risk assessment. Research
Assistant, George Washington University, Washington.
75.
Seidel, Georgetta Ph.D., 2003 Detection on non-CPE producing enteroviruses via ICC-PCR at
wastetewater land application sites in Arizona and California; Endocrine disruption activity after
wetland, pond, and soil aquifer treatment of wastewater. Senior Epidemiologist, Tucson Medical Center,
Tucson, AZ.
76.
Manshadi, Fashi. D. Ph.D., 2003. Occurrence of pathogenic and indicator microorganisms on produce
irrigated with dairy wastewater. Research Assistant. Arizona State University. Phoenix, AZ.
77.
Kayed, D. Ph.D. 2003. Microbial duality of irrigation water used in the production of 1-resh produce in
Arizona. Microbiologist. Phoenix, AZ.
72

 
78.
Bright, K. Ph.D. 2003. Reduction of pathogenic
bacterial populations on stainless
steel by silver and zinc
ions
:
potential use
in preventing
cross contamination
of environmental surfaces. Assistant Research
Scientist
,
University of Arizona. Tucson, AZ.
79.
Woo, I-I. M.S. 2004. Bacteriophage
surrogate for human enteric viruses in
the testing
of point-of-use
(I'OU) devices.
Microbiologist
. Analytical Associates, VT.
80.
Balkhyour, M. Ph.D. 2004. Factors that affect
respirator fit- testing programs
. Professor, Saudi Arabia.
81.
Tanner, B. D. Ph.D. 2004. Aerosolization of microorganisms and risk of infection frorn reuse of
wastewater residuals. Research Scientist, Clorox Company. Pleasanton, CA.
82.
Stine, S.
W. Ph.D. 2004. Survival of enteric pathogens on the surface of fresh produce and intake of
heterotrophic bacteria in the United States. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Dallas, TX.
83.
Sutton, S. J. M.S. 2004. Inactivation of
Ei?cephalitozoon intestinals
by chlorine dioxide. Microbiologist.
Aerotech Labs,. Phoenix, AZ.
84.
Law, B. F. Ph.D. 2005. Assessment of the pathogenicity of
Camj3ylobacter°
from broiler chickens.
Research Scientist, University of Arizona.
85.
Boone, S. 2005. Occurrence and persistence of viruses on fornites. Research Scientist, Agricultural
Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture, New Orleans, LA..
86.
Jones
,
E. L. Ph.D. 2006. Norovirus in
recreational
waters of Arizona.
Microbiologist
. Clorox Company.
Pleasanton, CA.
87.
Black, S. M.S. 2006.
Determination
of Ct values of resistant
enterovirus
by chlorine
inactivation.
Research
Specialist
, University of Arizona.
88.
Bronson-Lowe, D. L. Ph.D. 2006. Impact of an environmental hygiene intervention on illness and
microbial levels in child care centers, Epidemiologist. State of Arizona Department of Health. Phoenix,
AZ.
89.
Chattman, M. M.S. 2006. Bacterial contamination of liquid hand soaps. Research Technician. University
of Arizona, "Tucson, AZ.
90.
Blair, Barbara. M.S. 2006. Occurrence of
Naegleria fowleri
in wells in Arizona. Ph.D, student at the
University of Arizona.
91.
Castro, Nehelia. 2007. Ph.D. Survival of enteric bacteria and viruses in biosolids.
73

 
92,
Goartares-Moroyoqui, Pablo. 2007. Ph.D. Microbiological water quality in irrigation water, treated
wastewater, and untreated wastewater and its impact on vegetables in Sonora, Mexico. Director of
Biotechnology Programs, Sonora Institute of Technology. Obregon, Sonora.
93.
Ruelas, Enue Erdemely Sicaros. 2007. Ph.D. The development of alternative methods of disinfection.
Research
scientist
. The Clorox Company. Pleasanton, CA.
94.
Marrero-Ortiz, Roberto. 2007. Ph.D. Assessment of the microbial and chemical water quality of
individual and small water groundwater supplies in Arizona. Research Associate. WI.
95.
Rodriguez, R. A. 2007. Ph.D.Occurrence of enteric viruses on combined sewer overflows. Postdoctoral
Fellow. University of North Carolina. Chapel Mill, NC.
96.
Oswald, A. 2007. Ph.D. Removal of indictors and pathogens by an artificial wetland used to treat
secondary treated wastewater. Director of Research. Orange County Water District. Orlando, FL.
97.
Carpenter, K. 2007. M. S. The ecology of bacterial pathogens and
Salmonella
in Irrigation canals.
Laboratory Manager. The Clorox Company. Oakland, CA
98.
Moghe, A. 2007. M.S. Persistence of bacteria on fomites.
POSTDOCTORAL FELLOWS
Dr. Samuel Farrah, Professor of Microbiology, Department of Microbiology and Cell Science,
University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.
2.
Dr. Pierre Payment, Professor of Microbiology, Institute Armand-Frappier, University of Quebec, 531,
Blv. Des Prairies, Laval-des-Rapides, Quebec, Canada.
3.
Dr. Sagar
Goyal,
Professor of Microbiology
,
Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratories
,
College of
Veterinary
Medicine, University of Minnesota, St
.
Paul,
MN.
4.
Dr. Bruce Keswick, Director, Global Microbiology, Proctor and Gamble Co., Cincinnati, OH.
5.
Dr. Thomas Hcjkal, Physician, Lincoln, NE.
6.
Dr. De-Shin Wang, Conapac Computers, Houston, TX.
7.
Dr.
Marylynn Yates, Professor and Chairperson, Department of Soil and Environmental Science,
University of California, Irvine, CA.
74

 
8.
Dr. Shri N. Singh, Professor, Director of Diagnostic Microbiology, University of Kentucky,
Hopkinsville, KY.
9.
Dr. Susan Stranger, Research Scientist, Centers Disease Control, Atlanta, GA.
10.
Dr. Susan M. Bradford (Kutc), Private consultant to the water industry, Fountain Valley, CA.
11.
Dr. Joan Rose, Professor, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State University, East
Lansing, MI
12.
Dr. Aarron Margolin, Professor, Departrrnent of Microbiology, University of New Hampshire, Durham,
NI-1.
13.
Dr. Morte a Abbas adegan
,
Professor, Department of Environmental Engineering, Arizona State
University
,
Tempe, AZ.
14.
Dr. David K. Powelson, Assistant Research Scientist, University of Florida, Gainesville.
15.
Dr. Timothy Straub, Research Scientist, Battelle Labs Northwest. Richmond, WA.
16.
Dr. Patricia Rusin, Associate Research Scientist, Dept. of Soil, Water and Environmental Science, The
University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ.
17.
Dr. Carlos Enriquez, Xavier College, CA
18.
Dr. Dana Johnson, Microbiologist, San Jose, "I'X
19.
Dr. Kelly Bright, Assistant Research Scientist, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ.
20.
Dr. Stephanie Boone, Research Scientist, Agricultural Research Service, New Orleans, LA.
21.
Ryan Sinclair, current
75

 
A
tt
ac
hm
e
nt 2

 
Prepared for
Protecting Our Water Environment
Metropolitan
Water
Reclamation District of Greater Chicago
DRY AND WET WEATHER
RISK ASSESSMENT OF HUMAN HEALTH
IMPACTS OF DISINFECTION VS. NO DISINFECTION OF
THE CHICAGO AREA WATERWAYS SYSTEM (CWS)
Prepared by
Geosy
n
tec O
con
s
ultants
1111
. I %rit -r^tI"I'ti i II IIIIw
ilI(3rN
55 West
Wacker Drive, Suite 1100
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Project Number CHE8188
April 2008

 
Goosynte&
consultants
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST
OF TABLES ..........................................................................................................IV
LIST OF
FIGURES .......................................................................
............................... VII
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS ....................................................
......... .............
........••.......
IX
LIST" OF APPENDICES .......................................................................... ........................ X
LIST OF ACRONYMS .............................................................•........
.............................XI
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
..........................................................
............................... XIII
1.
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... I
1.1
PROJECT OBJECTIVE AND PROJECT TASKS ........................................................... 5
1.2
REPORT ORGANIZATION ....................................................................................... 6
1.3
RErERI-NCES ........................................................................................................ 6
2.
MICROBIAL. SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS .......................................................
8
2.1
RA'T'IONALE FOR INDICATOR AND PATHOGENIC MICROORGANISM SELECTION .... 8
2.2
SAMPLING OBJECTIVES ........................................................................................ 9
2.2.1
Dry Weather Sampling Objectives ..............................................................9
2.22
Wet Weather Sampling Objectives ........................................................... 10
2.3
FIELD SAMPLING PROCEDURES ........................................................
...... 11
2.3.1
Microbial Sampling Locations .................................................................. 11
2.3.1.1
Dry Weather Sampling Locations ......................................................... 12
2.11.2
Wet Weather Sampling Locations ......................................................... 14
2.3.2
Sample Collection Equipment, Materials and Procedures ........................ 15
2.3.2.1
Virus Sampling .................................................................................... 19
2.3.2.2
Bacteria Sampling ................................................................................20
2.3.2.3
Cryptosr.)vridium
and
Giardia
Sampling ...............................................20
2.3.3
Sample Identification ................................................................................ 22
2.3.4
Sample Custody .........................................................................................22
2.3.5
Sample Packaging, Shipment, and Tracking-- .......................................23
2.15.1
Sample Packaging ................................................................................. 23
2.3.5.2
Shipping and Tracking .......................................................................... 24
2.3.6
Waste Managenrent ................................................................................... 24
2.3.7
Health and Safety ...................................................................................... 24
2.4
QUALITY ASSURANCE/ QUALITY CONTROL PROCEDURES ................................. 25
2.4.1
Microbial Methods of Analyses ..................................
..................... 25
2.4.2
Data Quality Objectives ............................................. . ........................... 26
2.4.3
QA/QC Procedures-, ..............................-............................................... 26
2.4.3.1
Laboratory Internal QC .........................................................................27
2.4.3.2
Equipment Calibration...... ............ ....................................................... 31
2.4.3.3
Equipment Maintenance ........................................................................31 .
2.4.3.4
Corrective Actions ................................................................................. 31
Final
Wetdry-April 2008
i

 
TABLE OF CONTENTS (
Continued.)
2.5
REFERENcrs ...................................................................................................... 32
3.
ANALYTICAL
RESULTS .....................................................................................35
3.1
BAC,IF.RtA RESULFS ............... ........................................... ....... ,......................... 35
11.1
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) ............................................
..................
36
3.1.2
Geometric
Means .....................................................................
................. 39
3,13
Percentile Box Plots .................................................................................. 40
3.2
PROTOZOA ANALYTICAL
, RESUL
TS ..................................................................... 41
3.2.1
Enumeration Results ....................................................
...........
41
3.2.2
Detection
of Infectious
Cgptosporidiwn
Oocysts Using Cell Culture ....
43
3.2.3
Giardia
Viability
Results ..........................................
................................
44
3.3
VIRUS ANALYTICAL RESUUI's ............................................................................ 47
3.3.1.
Enteric Viruses ..................................
... 48
3.3.2
Adenovirus ................................................................................................50
3.3.3
Calicivirus
(Norovirus) ................................................. ............................
52
14
REFERENCES ...................................................................................................... 55
4.
DISINFECTION
.....................................................................................................
58
4.1
CIiL,OItINA'rION/DzrCHLORINA'
I'ION ....................................................................59
4.2
OZONE
................................................................................................................
62
4.3
UV ..........................................................................................................
........... 63
4.4
DISINFECTION BY-PRODUCTS
(
DBPS
)
AND RL
;
sIDUALS ...............................
......
65
4.4.1
Chlorination DBPs and Residuals
..... ........................................................67
4.4.2
Ozonation DBPs and Residuals
., ............ ... - ..................................... ....... 69
4.5
DIsINFECTIoN EFFECTIVENESS
...........................................................................71
4.5.1
Bacteria Disinfection Efficiency .................................
.............................. 73
4.5.2
Protozoa Disinfection Efficiency
.............................................................. 77
4.5.3
Virus
Disinfection
.
Efficiency ....................................................................81
4.6
SUMMARY
AND CONCLUSIONS ...........................................................................
86
4.7
REFERENCES
......................................................................................................91
5.0
MICROBIAL RISK ASSESSEMENT
..............................................................
94
5.1
HAZARD IDENTIFICATION ...................................................................................94
5.2
EXPOSURE AssEssMENT.................................................................................... 95
5.2.1
Waterway Use Summary and Receptor Group Categorization ................. 97
5.2.2
Exposure Inputs .........................................................................................99
5.3
DosL-RLSPONSEAssESSMENI ..........................................................................102
5.3.1
Enteric viruses ......................................................................................... 104
5.3.2
Calicivirus ...............................................................................................106
5.3 .3
Adenovirus .............................................................................................. 107
5.3,4
Escherichia coli .......................................................................................
108
5.3.5
Pseudoinonas
aetwginosa
............................. ............................................
110
5.3.6
Salmonella ...............................................................................................112
5.3.7
Cryptosporidium .................................................................................,....112
5.3.8
Giardia
...................................... .................................. ......,............ .........114
5.4
RISK CHARACTERIZATION ................................................................................. 1.15
Finat Wetdry-April 2008
ii

 
TABLE Or CONTENTS (
Continued)
5.4.1
Probabilistic Analysis .............................................................................. 116
5.4.2
Disease Transmission Model .................................................................. 120
5.43
Microbial Exposure Point Concentrations .............................................. 121
5.4.4
Weather .................................................................................................. 124
5.4.5
Simulations
..............................................................................................125
5.4.6
Risk Assessment Calculation Results and Conclusions. .......... .............. 126
5.4.7
Sensitivity and Uncertainty Analysis ...................................................... 130
5.5
RuFERENCES ............... ................................ .................. ........... ...,............. ....... 133
Filial
WeldryApril2W8
iii

 
Geosynte&
consultants
LIST OF TABLES
Table ES-1:
Summary of Pathogen Disinfection Efficiencies
Table ES-2:
Total Expected Primary Illnesses per 1,000 Exposures under Combined
Dry and Wet Weather Using Different Effluent Disinfection Techniques
Table ES-3:
Estimated Illness Rates Assuming Single Recreational Use with No
Effluent Disinfection
Tale ES-4:
Effect of Disinfection on Expected Recreational Illnesses per 1,000
Exposures
Table 2-1:
Major Waterborne Pathogenic Microorganisms Selected for the Microbial
Risk Assessment
Table 2-2:
Summary of Dry and Wet Weather Samples
Table 2-3:
Summary of Dry and Wet Weather WRP Flows (MGD) and Pumping
Station Discharge Volumes (MG) Provided by MWRDGC
Table 3-1 a:
Summary of the Dry Weather North Side Bacteria Results
Table 3-1 b:
Summary of the Dry Weather Stickney Bacteria Results
Table 3-1 c:
Summary of the Dry Weather Calumet Bacteria Results
Table 3-1d:
Summary of the Wet Weather North Side Bacteria Results
"T"able 3-le:
Summary of the Wet Weather Stickney Bacteria Results
Table 3-If:
Summary of the Wet Weather Calumet Bacteria Results
Table 3-2a:
Dry Weather Geometric Mean Bacteria Concentrations (in CFU1100 ml.,;
Salmonella
in
MPN/100 mQ
Table 3-2b:
Wet Weather Geometric Mean Bacteria Concentrations (in CFU/100 mL;
Salmonella
in MPN/ Q
Table 3-3a:
Dry Weather Indigenous
Cryptvsporidium
Oocysts and
Giardia
Cysts in
Samples Collected at the North Side Waterway Segment
Table 3-3b:
Dry Weather Indigenous
Cr-yptosporidium
Oocysts and
Giardia
Cysts in
Samples Collected at the Stickney Waterway Segment
Table 3-3c:
Dry Weather Indigenous
Cryptosporidium
Oocysts and
Giardia
Cysts in
Samples Collected at the Calumet Waterway Segment
Table 3-3d:
Wet Weather Indigenous
Cryptosporidiuin
Oocysts and
Giardia
Cysts in
Samples Collected at the North Side Waterway Segment
Table 3-3e:
Wet Weather Indigenous
Cryptosporidium.
Oocysts and
Giardia
Cysts in
Samples Collected at the Stickney Waterway Segment
Table 3-3f:
Wet Weather Indigenous
Cr.yptosporidium
Oocysts and
Giardia
Cysts in
Samples Collected at the Calumet. Waterway Segment
Final
We[dry
-Apol2008
iv

 
LIST OF TABLES
(Continued)
Table 3-4a:
Dry
Weather
Viability
Results of
Giardia
.
Cysts Using
Fluorogenic Dyes
in Samples Collected at the North Side Waterway Segment
Table 3-4b:
Dry Weather Viability Results of
Giardia
Cysts Using Fluorogenic Dyes
in Samples Collected at the Stickney Waterway Segment
Table 3-4c:
Dry Weather Viability Results
of Giardia
Cysts Using Fluorogenic Dyes
in Samples Collected at the Calumet Waterway Segment
'Table 3-4d:
Wet Weather Viability Results of
Giardia
Cysts Using Fluorogenic Dyes
in Samples Collected at the North Side Waterway
Segment
Table 3-4e:
Wet Weather Viability Results of
Giardia
Cysts Using Fluorogenic Dyes
in Samples Collected at the Stickney Waterway Segment
'T'able 3-4f:
Wet Weathcr Viability Results
of Giardia
Cysts Using Fluorogenic Dyes
in Samples Collected at the Calumet Waterway Segment
Table 3-5a:
Summary of the North Side Dry Weather Enteric Virus
Results
Table 3-5b:
Summary of the Stickney Dry Weather Enteric Virus Results
Table 3-5c:
Summary of the Calumet Dry Weather Enteric Virus Results
Table 3-5d:
Summary of the North Side Wet Weather Enteric Virus Results
Table 3-5e:
Summary of the Stickney Wet Weather Enteric Virus Results
Table 3-5f:
Summary of the Calumet Wet Weather Enteric Virus Results
Table 3-6:
Dry Weather Cell Culture Assay and Adenovirus Results
Table 3-7:
Dry Weather Norovirus
(Calicivirus)
Results
Table 3-8:
Wet Weather Cell Culture AssaylA(lenovirus Results and Norovirus
(Ca.licivirus)
Results
Table 3-9:
Summary of Dry Weather Virus Detections (%n) and Detectable
Concentration Ranges
Table 3-10
:
Summary of Wet Weather Virus Detections (%) and Detectable
Concentration Ranges
Table 3-11:
Comparison of Percent (%) Virus Detections During Dry and Wet
Weather
'T'able 4-1:
Summary of
Disinfectant
Characteristics
Table 4-2:
List of DBPs and Disinfection Residuals
Table 4-3:
Status of Health Information for Disinfectants and DBPs
Table 4-4
:
Principal Known By-products of Ozonation
Table 4-5:
Ozone Disinfection Studies Involving Indicator Bacteria
Table 4-6:
Inactivation of Microorganisms by Pilot-Scale O:zonation
Final Wetdry
-
April 2008
v

 
LIST OF TABLES (
Continued)
Table 4-7:
Summary of Reported Ozonation Requirements for 99% (2-Log)
Inactivation of
Cryltosporidiwn par•vurra
Oocysts
Table 4-8:
Reduction of Selected Pathogens by Ozone in Tertiary Municipal
Effluents
Table 4-9:
Summary of CT Values for 99% Inactivation of Selected Viruses by
Various Disinfectants at 5°C
Table 4-10:
1.0GI0 Reductions Achieved for Coliphage During Disinfection of
Secondary Effluent by UV Irradiation and Chlorination
Table 4-11:
Summary of Pathogen Disinfection Efficiencies
Table 5-1:
UAA General Activity Groups and Risk Assessment Categories
't'able 5-2:
Proportion of Users in Each Risk Assessment Activity Category by
Waterway
Table 5-3:
Household Size for Cook County, Illinois
Table 5-4:
Incidental Ingestion Rate Percentiles
Table 5-5:
Summary of Dose-Response Parameters Used for Risk Assessment
Table 5-6:
Summary of Secondary Attack Rates
Table 5-7:
Fold
Attenuation of Pathogen Concentration by Various Treatment
Methods
Table 5-8:
Proportion of Weather Days in Recreational Year
't' able 5-9
:
T
otal Expected illnesses per 1,000 Exposures Using Different Estimates of
Pathogen Concentrations with No Effluent Disinfection
Table 5-10:
Criteria for Indicators for Bacteriological Densities
Table 5-11:
Proportion of Recreational User Type Contributing to Gastrointestinal
Expected Illnesses with No Effluent Disinfection
Table 5
-
12
Stratified Risk Estimates
-
Estimated Illness Rates Assuming Single
Recreational Use with No Effluent Disinfection
Table 5-13:
Breakdown of Illnesses per 1,000 Exposures for Combined Wet and Dry
Weather Samples with No Effluent Disinfection
Table 5-14:
Total Expected Primary Illnesses per 1,000 Exposures Under Combined
Dry and Wet Weather Using Different. Disinfection Techniques
Table 5-15:
Pseudomonas aeruginosa
Concentrations
by WRP
Waterway Segment
and Sampling
Category
Table 5-16:
Sensitivity Analysis for Risks of Illness in WRY Segments
Table 5-17:
Parameter Sensitivity
Analysis for North Side
(
Illnesses
per 1,000
Recreational Users)
Fin) Wetday
-
Rptil 2009
vi

 
Geosyntec°
consultants
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure ES-1: Chicago Waterway System
-
Dry Weather Sampling Locations
Figure ES-2:
Chicago Waterway System
-
Wet Weather Sampling Locations
Figure 1-1:
Figure 2-1:
Figure 2-2:
Figure 2-3:
Figure 3-1:
Figure 3-2:
Figure 3-3:
Figure 3-4:
Figure 3-5:
Figure 3-6:
Figure 3-7:
Figure 3-8:
Figure 3-9:
Figure 3-10:
Figure 3-11:
Figure 3-12:
Figure 3-13:
Figure 3-14:
Figure 3-15:
Figure, 3-16:
Figure 3-17:
Figure 3-18:
Figure 3-19:
Chicago Waterway System
Chicago Waterway System Dry Weather
Sampling
Locations
Chicago Waterway System Wet Weather Sampling Locations
Typical Filter Apparatus
North Side Dry Weather
Bacteria
Histograms
Stickney Dry Weather Bacteria Histograms
Calumet Dry Weather Bacteria Histograms
ANOVA
Results:
Dry Weather
E. coli -
vs. Site, Location, Depth
ANOVA Results: Dry Weather Fecal Coliform -
vs. Site
,
Location, Depth
ANOVA Results
:
Dry Weather
Enterococcus
-
vs. Site, Location, Depth
ANOVA Results: Wet Weather E,
coli
-
vs. Site, Location
ANOVA Results: Wet Weather Fecal Coliform - vs. Site, Location
ANOVA
Results: Wet Weather
Enlerococeus
-
vs. Site, Location
ANOVA Results
:
Wet Weather
Pseudomonas uerugin.osa-
vs.
Site,
Location
ANOVA Results: Wet Weather
Salmonella-
vs. Site, Location
ANOVA
Results:
Dry and Wet Weather E.
coli
-
vs.
Site, Location,
Weather
ANOVA Results: Dry and Wet Weather Fecal Coliform, - vs. Site,
Location
,
Weather
ANOVA
Results:
Dry and Wet Weather
Fnterococcus -
vs. Site,
Location,
Weather
ANOVA
Results: Dry and Wet Weather
Pseudonzona
.
s aeruginosa-
vs.
Site, Location, Weather
Geometric Mean Dry Weather Bacteria Concentrations at North Side
Geometric Mean Dry Weather Bacteria Concentrations at Stickney
Geometric Mean Dry Weather Bacteria Concentrations at Calumet
Wet Weather Geometric Mean Bacteria Concentrations by Location (UPS,
DNS, OUT FALL) at North Side, Stickney and Calumet (efu/100ml,;
Salmonella
in MPNIL)
Final
Weuiry
-
April 2008
vii

 
LIST OF FIGUR
ES (Continued)
Figure 3-20:
Dry and Wet Weather Geometric Mean. Bacteria Concentrations by WRP
(including OUTFAIA.S, UPS, DNS) (cfu/100mL;
Salmonella
in MPN/L)
Figure 3-21:
North Side Dry Weather Spatial Box Plots of Bacteria Concentrations
Figure 3-22:
Stickney Dry Weather Spatial Box Plots of Bacteria Concentrations
Figure 3-23
:
Calumet Dry Weather Spatial Box Plots of Bacteria Concentration
Figure 3-24
:
North Side Wet Weather Temporal Percentile Box Plots of Bacteria
Concentrations
Figure 3-25:
Stickney Wet
Weather Temporal Percentile Box Plots of Bacteria
Concentrations
Figure 3-26: Calumet Wet
Weather Temporal Percentile Box Plots of Bacteria
Concentrations
Figure 4-1:
Conceptual Representation of the Possible Fates of Bacteria Disinfectant
Exposure
Figure 5-1:
CWS Microbial Risk Assessment Segments
Figure 5-2:
Incidental Ingestion Rate Distribution for Canoeists (mL/hr)
Figure 5-3:
Duration Distribution for Canoeists
Figure 5-4:
Estimated Pathogen Concentration between Wet and Dry Sampling Events
I, 'inaf Weidry
-Apffl2008
Viii

 
Geosyntec°
consultants
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A; Bacteria Correlations
Final
Wetdry-Apfii 2008
ix

 
Geosyntec'
consultants
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A-1: MWRDGC Dry Weather Field Sampling Forms
Appendix A-2: MWRDGC Wet Weather Field Sampling Forms
Appendix B-1:
Appendix S-2:
Appendix C-1:
Appendix C-2:
Appendix D-1:
Appendix D-2:
Dry Weather HML Analytical
Results
Wet Weather HML Analytical Results
Dry Weather CEC Analytical Report
Wet Weather CEC Analytical Report
Dry Weather University of Arizona Analytical
Results
Wet Weather University of Arizona Analytical Results
Final
WetdryApril 2008
z

 
Geosymteea
consultants
LIST OF ACRONYMS
ANOVA
Analysis of Variance
AWQM
Ambient Water Quality Monitoring
13E+AACIi
Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health
BGMK
Blue Green Monkey Kidney
BR
Backflow Regulator
CCL
Contaminant Candidate List
CDC
Center for Disease Control
CEC
Clancy
Environmental Consultants, Inc.
COD
Chemical Oxygen Demand
CLHA
Cecil Lue-Fling and Associates
CPE
Cytopathic Effects
CSC
Calumet-Sag Ch
annel
CSO
Combined
Sewer
Overflow
CSSC
Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal
CT
Contact Time
CDF
Cumulative Distribution Function
CWA
Clean Water Act
C_WS
Chicago Area Waterway System
DAPI
4',6-diamidino-2-phenylindole
DBPs
Disinfection Byproducts
DIC
Differential Interference Contrast
DPR
Des Plaines River
DNS
Downstream.
DQO
Data Quality Objective
E. coli
Escherichia coli
EPA
US Environmental Protection Agency
FA
Fluorescence Assay
FITC
Fading
/
Diffusion Of Fluorescent Isothiocyanate
FS
Flowing Stream
Gcosyntcc
Geosyntee Consultants
GPS
Global
Positioning System
HAV
Hepatitis A Virus
HEV
Hepatitis E Virus
HML
Hoosier Microbiological Laboratory, Inc.
IDPH
Illinois Department of Public Health
IEPA
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
IPCB
Illinois Pollution Control Board
LCR
Little Calumet River
LP&L
Lockport Powerhouse and Lock
MG
Million Gallons
MGD
Million Gallons per Day
MI~
Membrane Filtration
MLE
Maximum Likelihood Estimation
Final Wetdry
,
Apiil 2008
X1

 
GeOsyntec O
Consultants
LIST OF ACRONYMS (
Continued)
MPN
Most Probable Number
MS
Matrix Spike
MWRDGC
Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago
NAC
Negative Assay Control
NOM
Natural Organic Matter
NPDES
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NSC
North Shore Channel
NTU
Nephelometric Turbidity Units
OPR
Ongoing Precision And Recovery
PAC:
Positive
Assay
Control
PCR
Polymerase Chain Reaction
PDF
Probability Density Function
PMP
Probability Mass Function
PEC
Patterson Environmental Consultants
PFU
Plaque Forming Units
PR
Regulator Module
QA
Quality Assurance
QC
Quality Control
QAPP
Quality Assurance Project Plan
QMRA
Quantitative Microbial Risk Assessment
RFP
Request for Proposal
RT
Reverse Transcriptase
SAC
Senior Advisory Committee
SAP
Sampling and Analysis Plan
SC
Specific Conductance
SF
Swivel Fernale Insert
SOP
Standard Operating Procedure
SWW
Significant Wet Weather
UAA
Use Attainability Analysis
UV
Ultraviolet
UPS
Upstream
VIRADEL
Virus Adsorption-llution
WCC
Waterway Control Center
WHO
World Health Organization
WRP
Water Reclamation Plant
Final VI'etdry-April 2008`
Xii

 
Geosyntec
Consultants
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
The Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago (MWRDGC or
District)
has retained The Geosyntec Team, which includes Geosyntec Consultants
(Geosyntec) and its subcontractors, Patterson Environmental Consultants (PEC); Cecil
Lue-Ring & Associates (CLHA); Dr. Charles Gerba of the University of Arizona (UA);
Hoosier
Microbiological Laboratory, Inc. (HML); and Clancy Environmental
Consultants, inc. (CEC) to perfornx a Risk Assessment of Human Health Impacts of
Disinfection Vs. No Disinfection of the Chicago Area Waterways System (CWS).
The CWS consists of 78 miles of canals, which serve the Chicago area for two principal
purposes: (1) the drainage of urban storm water runoff and treated municipal wastewater
effluents from the District's three major water reclamation plants (WRP) (North Side,
Stickney and Calumet), and (2) the support of commercial navigation (See Figure ES-1).
Approximately 15 percent of the length of the CWS includes manmade canals where no
waterway existed previously, and the remainder includes natural streams that have been
deepened, straightened and/or widened to such an extent that reversion to the natural state
is not possible. About 70 percent of the annual flows in the CWS are from the discharge
of treated municipal wastewater effluent from the District's WRPs (MWRDGC, 2004).
Over time,
there have been major improvements in water quality, altered land use and
additional public access along the CWS
.
Such improvements and conditions have
produced
both greater opportunity and heightened public interest
i
n environmental and
recreational uses within and along the waterways. Currently, the waterways are used for
recreational boating, canoeing
,
fishing and other streannside recreational activities. These
waterways also provide aquatic habitat for wildlife.
The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) has conducted a Use Attainability
Analysis (UAA) of the CWS in accordance with 40 CFR 131.10(d). The IEPA and UAA
stakeholders have agreed that swimming and other primary contact recreation should not
be considered as a viable designated use of the CWS. The IF,PA initially attempted to
develop water quality standards for the CWS based on the
Ambient Water Quality
Criteria for Bacteria-1986
(EPA, 1986) and EPA guidance (EPA, 2003). In order to
Final Wetdcy-April 2008'
x6i

 
Geosynte&
consultants
assist IEPA in evaluating the proposed bacterial water quality standards, the District
commissioned qualified consultants (research scientists and water duality experts) to
conduct a peer review of the EPA's Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria
-
1986, and the
November 2003 draft
implementation guidance docurnent
(EPA, 1986 and 2003). The
findings of the expert review panel indicated that these EPA documents provide no
scientific basis for developing protective bacteria standards for the designated CWS
recreational uses.
One of the recommendations frorn the expert review panel report was
that
more science is needed before bacteria criteria can be established for effluent
dominated urban waterways
.
To address this recommendation, the District has conducted
a microbial risk assessment study to determine health impacts of recreational use of the
CWS.
Microbial Risk Assessment Objectives
The main objective of this risk assessment study was to evaluate the human health impact
of continuing
;
the current practice of not disinfecting the effluents from the District's
Calumet
,
North Side, and Stickney WRPs versus initiating; disinfection of the effluent at
these
three WRPs. The study includes dry and wet weather microbial sampling data. The
dry weather risk assessment sampling was completed during the 2005 recreational season
when the climatic conditions were not suitable for wet weather sampling.
T
he,
wet
weather sampling took place during the 2006 recreational season. Dry and wet weather
microbial sampling results of the surface water in the CWS and the WRP effluents
formed the basis for the risk assessment
.
The dry and wet weather microbial results were
integrated to enable an evaluation of the potential impacts of disinfection on overall risks
associated with the recreational use of the waterway.
This study focused on the detection of microorganisms typically present in the feces of
humans and other warm-blooded animals as indicators of fecal pollution. Hence, a group
of EPA-approved indicator microorganisms, such as
F. soli, enterococci,
and fecal
coliform was selected for this study. In addition to the indicator microorganisms,
pathogens representative of those present in the wastewater that are also of public health
Final wouhy-Apri
2008'
xiv

 
Geosyn
teca
consultants
concern were selected,
The rationale for selecting the pathogens for this microbial risk
assessment study included the following criteria:
The pathogens selected are associated with documented outbreaks of disease,
including gastrointestinal and respiratory diseases and infections
There are EPA-approved methods or laboratory standard operating procedures
(SOPS) available for the measurement of the selected pathogens.
Based on the rationale and selection criteria outlined above, the objective of the dry and
wet weather microbial risk assessment sampling was to determine the concentrations of
the following indicators and pathogens:
Enteric viruses: i) total culturable viruses, (ii) viable adcnovirus; and (iii)
Ca
lic
it-U-S
Infectious
Cryptosporidiurn parmn?
and
viable
Guardia
lamblia
• Salmonella
spp.
• P seudom
o
nas aeragin.os a
Fecal coliforms
• t. Coll
• Enterococci
Dry Weather Microbial Risk Assessment Objectives
During dry
weather, the District
'
s
North Side, Stickney
and Calumet
WRPs contribute
the majority of the flow in the
CWS. The specific
objectives of 2005 dry weather
sampling were as follows:
1.
Evaluate the impact of the treated effluent from the District's three major WRPs
(North Side, Stickney, and Calumet) on the microbial quality of the CWS.
2.
Estimate health risks to recreational users of the CWS due to incidental contact
pathogen exposure under dry weather conditions.
3.
Quantify any reduction of risk that would result from disinfection of WRP
effluents during dry weather.
Final
Weuiry-April 2009'
XV

 
Geosynte&
consultants
Wet Weather Microbial Risk Assessment Objectives
During wet weather, in addition to the WRP effluents, several sources contribute to the
microbial load in the CWS, including: CSOs, discharges from storm drains, overland
runoff, land-use activities such as agriculture and construction, erosion, and habitat
destruction. The specific objectives of 2006 wet weather sampling were as follows:
1.
Evaluate the impact of the WRP wet weather flow on the microbial quality of the
WRP outfalls.
2.
Evaluate the impact of combined sewer overflows (CSOs) on the microbial
quality of the CWS.
3.
Estimate health risks to recreational users of the CWS due to incidental contact
pathogen exposure under wet weather conditions.
4.
Quantify any reduction of risk that would result from disinfecting WRP effluents
during wet weather.
Microbial Sampling
and Analysis
Sampling and Analysis Plans (SAPs) and Quality Assurance Plans (QAPs) were
developed that provided a detailed sampling strategy, including sampling locations, the
number of samples and sampling frequency.
A subset of the Ambient Water Quality
Monitoring (AWQM) sampling stations employed by the MWRDGC along the 78 miles
of the CWS, was used for this study. Figures ES-1 and ES-2 show the dry and wet
weather sampling locations, respectively.
One of the components of the microbial risk assessment was to conduct water sampling
and analysis of the CWS.
Dry weather sampling was conducted between July and
September 2005. Seventy five (75) dry weather water samples were collected at the
North Side, Stickney and Calumet waterways, including upstream, downstream and
outfall samples.
Wet weather sampling was conducted between June and October 2006.
Fifty (50) wet weather samples were collected at the North Side, Stickney and Calumet
waterways, including upstream, downstream and outfall samples.
The wet weather
locations were spaced at significantly larger distances away from the WRPs compared to
the dry weather locations to account for the contributions of storm water runoff, CSO
outfalls, and pumping stations (see Figures ES-1 and ES-2).
At the North Side, wet
Final
Wetdry-April 2008'
Xvi

 
Geosyntec °
consultants
weather samples were also collected near the North Branch Pumping Station (NBPS) and
at Stickney, wet weather samples were collected near the Racine Avenue Pumping Station
(RAPS). Overall, one hundred and twenty five (125) samples were collected and
analyzed during the dry and wet weather events.
Sampling and analysis of microbial samples were conducted in accordance with the
procedures described at htW://cpa.gov/niicrobes and in Standard Methods for the
Examination of Water and Wastewater (Standard Methods, 1998). The samples were
analyzed for three major groups of indicator and pathogenic microorganisms including
bacteria, protozoa, and viruses. The microbial methods of analysis include the following:
• Enteric viruses: i) (total culturable viruses) using the methods described in the
1CR Microbial Laboratory Manual, EPA 600/R-95/178 (EPA, 1996); ii) viable
adenovirus; and iii)
Calicivirus.
The samples for total culturable viruses were
analyzed by HML and the sarnples for adenovirus and
Calicivirus
were
analyzed by the UA Laboratory using the UA SOPs. There are no EPA.-
approved methods for viable
Calicivirus.
The method used involves a
Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) method that offers an estirnate of the virus
concentration, but does not determine or confirm viability.
Calicivirus
is a
family of human and animal viruses.
For this risk assessment study
Calicivirus
refers to human
Caliciviruses,
specifically the genus norovirus.
Infectious
Cryptosporidium parvunz
and viable
Giardia laniblia
were
determined using EPA, Method 1623 (EPA, 2001) in conjunction with cell
culture infectivity for the
Cryptosporidiurn
and viability staining (DAPI-PI)
for the
Giurdia.
The samples for protozoa were analyzed by CEC.
Salmonella
spp. using Standard Method 9260D (Standard Methods, 1998)
P.seudomonas aeru.ginosa
using Standard Method 9213E (Standard Methods,
1998)
• Fecal
coliforms using Standard Method 9222D
(
Standard Methods, 1998)
• E. soli
using EPA Method 1103.1 (EPA, 2002)
Enteroeocci
using EPA Method 1106.2 (EPA, 2001x)
Final WcEdry-April 2008'
XVIi

 
GeosyntecO
consultants
Microbial Results and Conclusions
The microbial analytical results generated during this study were evaluated and
interpreted within the framework of dry and wet weather conditions. However, for the
microbial risk assessment estimates, the dry and wet weather microbial results were
integrated in a comprehensive dataset representative of all weather conditions in the
waterway. The following sections discuss the dry and wet- weather analytical results of
bacteria, protozoa and viruses.
)Bacteria Results
Bacteria were the most abundant microbial species detected in the waterway compared to
viruses and protozoa during both dry and wet weather events. The results were analyzed
and evaluated statistically using the Minitab computing software and the procedures in
Helsel and Hirsch (2002) and Ilelsel (2005).
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) ANOVA
tests were performed for the dry and wet weather bacteria results to determine differences
of bacteria concentrations by site (i.e., North Side, Stickney, and Calumet), by location
(i.e.,
upstream, downstream, and outfall), and by depth (for dry weather only) (i.e.,
surface and 1-nn depth).
Also, the geometric mean values of the bacteria concentrations were calculated as a
measure of the central tendency of the bacteria data sets under both dry and wet weather
conditions. In addition, semi-log box plots, indicating the 25`h, 50`I', and 75"' percentile
values of the data were created to graphically demonstrate the central tendencies and
variability of the various bacteria datasets.
For the dry weather results, the spatial
(upstream, downstream, outfall) percentile box plots were created.
An examination of
the spatial variability of the wet weather data did not reveal any discernable trends.
Therefore, for the wet weather results, the box plots were used to evaluate any ternporal
trends that may be attributable to the different weather conditions and the occurrence or
non-occurrence of discharges fro m the pumping stations.
Final Wedry-April 2008'
xviii

 
Geosptec O
consultants
Dry Weather
Bacteria Results
For dry weather, ANOVA analysis was only conducted on E.
coli,
fecal coliform, and
Enterococcus
data as these groups had the most statistically significant (by percent
detect) datasets.
E. coh,
fecal coliform, and
Enterococcus
were detected at a frequency
ranging from 99 to 100%, while
Pseudornonas aeruginosa
was detected in
75%v
of the
samples and
Salmonella
spp. in only 13%a of the samples.
The dry weather results are consistent for all bacteria groups in that there is a significant
difference between concentrations by site (North Side, Stickney and Calumet), and by
location (upstream and downstream).
This finding is consistent with a physical
understanding of the waterway system, that different sites have varying loading and
dilution conditions
which results in varying concentrations, and that bacteria
concentrations will generally increase downstream of the WRP outfalls compared to the
upstream locations.
Dry weather downstream concentrations at North Side are generally
greater than Stickney, which are greater than Calumet. Also, downstream concentrations
are consistently greater than upstream.
All bacteria groups in dry weather samples
showed no statistically significant difference in concentration by depth,
The dry weather geometric mean results confirm that the dry weather microbial
concentrations tend to increase immediately downstream of the WRPs. For dry weather
results, the semilog box plots show concentrations increasing downstream, except for P.
aeruginosa
at
Stickney and Calumet, and
Enterococcus
at Calumet.
P. aerugblosa
percentile results are highly influenced by non-detect results, therefore downstream
increases can not be seen in these box plots. Geometric mean values (generated using the
maximum likelihood method) are better indicators of this trend for significantly censored
datasets.
The fecal coliform dry weather concentrations upstream of the North ,Side and
Stickney
WRPs were greater than the IEPA proposed effluent limit of 400 colony
forming units (CFU)1100 mL.
Finial
Wadrp-April 20M'
XIx

 
Geosyntec°
consultants
For dry weather results, the box plots demonstrate a modest spread of the concentration
data around the median (around I log between the I" and 3rd quartiles), as well as the
occasionally significant skewedness (in log space) of these results.
Moreover, all the box
plots consistently show that downstream concentrations exhibit less variability than
upstream concentrations.
Wet Weather
Bacteria Results
The results of the wet weather data ANQVA analysis indicate that the wet weather E.
coli,
and
Enterococcus
data are significantly different by site (i.e. North Side, Stickney
and Calumet waterway) only. Fecal coliform, P.
aeruginosa
and
Salmonella
spp. do not
differ by site or any other factor.
The wet weather geometric means at each sampling location (upstream, downstream,
outfall) at the North Side and Stickney WRPs indicate that
most
of the North Side and
Stickney geometric mean bacteria concentrations upstream and downstream of the WRPs
are higher than the outfall concentrations.
Also, the wet weather upstream and
downstream geometric mean concentrations at Stickney and North Side are greater than
Calumet. Fecal coliform and
E. coli
wet weather concentrations are greater than the other
bacteria geometric means at each sampling location at all WRI's.
The results also
indicate that the wet weather fecal coliform concentrations upstream of the North Side,
Stickney and Calumet WRPs were above the IE13A proposed effluent limit of 400
CFU/ 100 rnL
The outfall samples show lower levels of
Pseudonion as aerugin.osa
than the
corresponding upstream and downstream wet weather samples. This suggests that the
major inputs for
Pseudomonas aeruginosa
in the waterways are sources other than the
WRP effluents.
The wet weather results indicate that the occurrence of pumping station discharges
resulted in elevated concentrations of bacteria in the Stickney and Calumet waterways,
except for
Salmonella
spp.
The large variability of the North Side bacteria results is
probably masking the effect of the NBPS discharge.
Final
Wetdry-April 2008'
xx

 
Ge©syntec°
consultants
Comparison of Dry and Wet Weather Bacteria Results
The results of the dry and wart weather ANOVA analysis indicate that dry and wet
weather combined bacteria data (E,
soli, Ekterococcus, P. aeruginosa)
are significantly
different by site (i.e. North Side, Stickney and Calumet waterway) and weather (dry and
wet).
Fecal coliform differs by weather only (not by site).
The
Salmonella
spp. dry
weather results had statistically insignificant detections and therefore an ANOVA
analysis of both the dry and wet weather results was not performed.
The wet weather bacteria concentrations are significantly greater than the dry weather
concentrations at each WRP waterway. The most significant differences are observed at
the
North Side and Stickney waterways. The geometric mean concentrations of
Salmonella
spp. were low in both dry and wet weather conditions. The
Salmonella
spp.
concentrations in the upstream and downstream samples were similar during wet weather
conditions at the North Side, Stickney, and Calumet segments of the waterway. The
enterococci
concentrations were lower than
E. coli
and fecal coliform concentrations
under wet weather conditions.
Pseudornonas aerugin.osa
wet weather concentrations
were slightly higher than the dry weather levels.
However, the effluent samples show
lower levels
of Pseudomonas aeruginosa
than the corresponding upstream and
downstream wet weather samples.
Cryptosvporidiam
and
Giardia
Results
The following sections discuss the
Cryptosporidiufn
and
Giardia
results under dry and
wet weather conditions.
Dry Weather
Cryptasporidium
and
Giardia
Results
At.
North Side, dry weather enumeration results indicate that
Giardia
cysts (cysts) were
detected in all outfall samples and in all downstream samples except two (2). Cysts were
also detected in four (4) of 10 upstream samples.
Cryptosporidium
oocysts (oocysts)
were detected in three (3) of five (S) outfall samples, one (1) of 10 upstream samples and
six (6) of 10 downstream samples,
Final Wetdry-April 2008`
xxi

 
Geosyntec°
consultants
At Stickney, dry weather
results show
Giardia
cysts
detected in all outfall samples.
Cysts were
detected in the upstream samples collected during the last
four dry weather
sampling events
.
Cysts were
not detected in two
(
2) of 10 downstream samples analyzed.
Cryptosporidium
oocysts were
detected in three
(3) of five
(5) outfall samples
analyzed,
in one
(
1) of 10 upstream
samples, and
in three
(3) of 10 downstream
samples.
At Calumet, dry weather
Giardia.
cysts were detected in four (4) of five (5) outfall and in
four (4) of 10 downstream samples. Cysts were not detected in any of the samples
upstream of the Calumet WRP.
Crypto
.
sj)oridiutn
oocysts were detected in one
(
1) of five
(5) outfall and in four
(
4) of 10 downstreamn samples at the Calumet waterway
.
Only one
upstream sample had detectable
Crypio.sporidiuni
oocysts at the Calumet waterway.
For dry weather samples, no infectious
Cryptosporidiurn
oocysts were detected. Also, for
dry weather, most
Giardia
cysts were non-viable. The average dry weather percentage of
viable
Giardia
cysts found in each waterway
segment, including outfall and in
-stream
concentrations
, are provided below-
• Calumet:
Giardia
viability= 10%n
• Stickney
:
Giardia
viability=21%
• North Side:
Giardia
viability=26%
Outfall samples at the North Side and Stickney WRPs, contained higher levels of viable
cysts compared to Calumet. The average dry weather percentage of viable
Giardia
cysts
found in the outfall only of each WRP is provided below:
• Calumet Outfall:
Giardia
viability=10%
• Stickney Outfall:
Giardia
viability=47%a
• North Side Outfall:
Gray-dia
viability=51
%
Final
W,!%Iy-April
2008'
xxii

 
GeosyntecR
consultants
Wei: Weather
Cryptosporidium
and
Giardi.a
Results
Overall, the concentrations and frequency of detection
of Cryptosporidium
oocysts and
Giardia
cysts were greater during; wet weather compared to dry weather sampling. Wet
weather enumeration results from samples collected at the North Side designated
locations indicate that
Cryptosporidium
oocysts were detected in one of three upstream
samples, in 10 of 12 downstream samples, and in the one (1) outfall sample collected.
Giardia
cysts were detected in all samples analyzed at the North Side.
Wet weather enumeration results from samples collected at the Stickney designated
locations indicate that four (4) of six (6) upstream samples, four (4) of six (6)
downstream samples and two (2) of three (3) RAPS samples had detectable
concentrations of
Cryptosj-?oridhvn
oocysts.
All Stickney samples, except one (1)
upstream sample, had detectable concentrations of
Giardia
cysts.
Wet weather enumeration results from samples collected at the Calumet designated
locations indicate that two (2) of the three (3) outfall samples had detectable
concentrations
of Cryptosporidium
oocysts. None of the wet weather samples collected
upstream of the Calumet WRP had detectable concentrations of
Cryptosporidium.
oocysts
and
Giardia
cysts.
Two (2) of the three (3) Calumet outfall samples had detectable
concentrations of
Cryptossparidiurn
oocysts.
Seven (7) of 12 downstream samples had
detectable concentrations of
Cryptosporidium
oocysts.
All outfall samples at the Calumet
WRP had
Giardia
cysts.
However, only four (4) of 12 downstream samples had
detectable
Giardia
cysts.
For wet weather samples, no infectious
Cryptosporidium
oocysts were detected with one
exception.
The average wet weather percentage of viable
Giardia
cysts found in each
waterway segment, including outfall and in-stream concentrations, are provided below:
• Calumet:
Giardia
viability=10%
• Stickney:
Giardia
viability=47%
North Side:
Giardia
viability=49%
Ficsal Weldry-April 200$'
XXiii

 
Geosynte&
consultants
The avera ;e wet weather percentage of viable
Giardia
cysts found in the outfall only of
each WRP is provided below:
• Calumet Outfall:
Giardia
viability=10%
• Stickney Outfall:
Giardia
viability=50%
• North Side Outfall:
Giardia
viability=42%
Comparison of Dry and Wet Weather
Cryptosporidium
and
Giardia
Results
For dry weather samples, no infectious
Cryptosporidiurn
oocysts were detected.
Similarly, for wet weather samples, no infectious
Cryptosporidium,
oocysts were detected
with one exception. Also, two (2) subsamples of the wet weather matrix spike sample of
the North Side waterway had infectious foci, Overall, the combined wet and dry weather
percentage of infectious foci is estimated to be approximately 24% (3 of 125 samples [75
dry weather and 50 wet weather samples]).
The Calumet waterway under both dry and wet weather contained the smallest percentage
(10%v) of viable
Giardia
cysts compared to Stickney and North Side. The viability of
Giardia
cysts increased at the Stickney and North Side waterways during wet weather.
The WRP outfalis had similar
Giardia
viability under wet and dry weather conditions.
Virus
Results
The following sections summarize the analytical results for enteric viruses, adenovirus
and Calicivirus
(norovirus) under dry and wet weather conditions.
Enteric Viruses
Dry Weather
Enteric
Virus
Results
The dry weather results indicate that a relatively small number of samples (17 of 75
samples or 23%) had detectable concentrations of enteric viruses.
Eight ($) of 25 dry
weather samples (29%) upstream, downstream and at the outfall of the North Side WRP
had detectable enteric virus concentrations.
Six (6) of 25 dry weather samples (24%)
Final Wetdry-April 2008`
Xxiv

 
Geosyntec °
consultants
upstream and downstream of the Stickney WRP had detectable virus concentrations.
There were no detectable enteric virus concentrations at the Stickney WRP outfall. Only
three (3) of 25 dry weather samples (12%0), one at each upstream, downstream and outfall
location of the Calumet WRP had detectable concentrations of enteric viruses.
Wet Weather
Enteric Virus Results
During the North Side wet weather sampling, 11 of 16 samples (69%) had detectable
enteric virus concentrations. Only one (l) wet weather outfall sample was collected at
the North Side WRP; that sample had a detectable enteric virus concentration. Due to
safety concerns, the discharge of the NBPS was sampled at the nearest downstream
location and only one (1) of the three (3) samples collected had detectable virus
concentrations.
During the Stickney wet weather sampling, 14 of 16 samples (88%p) had detectable
enteric virus concentrations.
Only one (1) wet weather outfall sample was collected at
the Stickney WRP; that sample had a detectable enteric virus concentration. All three (3)
RAPS samples had detectable concentrations of total enteric viruses
During the Calumet wet weather sampling, 1.4 of 18 samples (77%) had detectable enteric
virus concentrations. Two (2) of the three (3) wet weather outfall samples collected at
the Calumet WRP had detectable enteric virus concentrations.
Comparison of Dry and Wet Weather Enteric
Virus
Results
The percentage of enteric virus detections during wet weather were greater than the dry
weather detections. The percentage of enteric virus detections at the North Side
waterway segment increased from 29% during dry weather to 69% during wet weather.
The percentage of virus detections at the Stickney waterway segment increased from 24%
during dry weather to 88% during wet weather.
The percentage of enteric virus
detections at the Calumet waterway segment increased from 12% during dry weather to
77% during wet weather. In addition, the concentrations detected during wet weather
sampling are generally greater than the dry weather concentrations.
Final WetdryApril 2009'
xxv

 
Geosyntec
consultants
Adenovirus
Dry Weather Adenovirus Results
Of 75 dry weather samples, 42 or 56% demonstrated the presence of detectable virus by
assay in the PCUPRF/5 cell line. Of 42 samples that were cell culture positive,
adenoviruses were detected in 31 or about 74% of the samples by PCR. During the North
Side dry weather sampling, 12 of 25 samples (48%) had detectable adenovirus virus
concentrations.
During the Stickncy dry weather sampling, 13 of 25 samples (52%) had
detectable adenovirus concentrations.
During the Calumet dry weather sampling, six (6)
of 25 samples (24%) had detectable adenovirus concentrations. There were no detectable
concentrations upstream of the Calumet WRP during dry weather sampling.
Wet Weather Adenovirus
Results
Of 50 wet weather samples, 42 or 84% demonstrated the presence of infectious virus by
assay in the PCUPRT/5 cell line and had adenoviruses detected by PCR. During the
North Side wet weather sampling, 14 of 16 samples (88%) had detectable adenovirus
concentrations,
Several of the upstream and downstream locations had concentrations
greater than the outfall.
Due to safety concerns, the discharge of the NBPS was sampled
at the nearest downstream location and all three (3) samples collected had detectable
adenovirus concentrations.
During the Stickncy wet weather sampling, 15 of 16 samples (94%) had detectable
adenovirus concentrations. Only one (1) wet weather outfall sample was collected at the
Stickncy
WRP; that sample had a detectable adenovirus concentration.
All three (3)
RAPS samples had detectable concentrations of adenovirus
During the Calumet wet weather sampling, 13 of 18 samples (72%) had detectable
adenovirus concentrations,
Only one (1) out of three (3) upstream samples at the
Calumet W RP had detectable adenovirus concentrations. Nine (9) of the 12 downstream
samples had detectable adenovirus concentrations.
All three (3) wet weather outfall
samples collected at the Calumet WRP had detectable adenovirus concentrations.
Final WctdryApril2009'
xxvi

 
Geosyntecc'
consultants
Comparison of Wet and Dry Weather Adenovirus Results
The percentage of adenovirus detections during wet weather were greater than the dry
weather detections, The percentage of adenovirus detections at the North Side waterway
segment increased from 48% during dry weather to 88% during wet weather. The
percentage of adenovirus detections at the Stickney waterway segment increased from
52% during dry weather to 94% during wet weather. The percentage of adenovirus
detections at the Calumet waterway segment increased from 24% during dry weather to
72% during wet weather. In addition, the concentrations detected during wet weather
sampling are generally greater than the dry weather concentrations.
Calieivirus
(Norovirus)
Dry Weather
Calicivirus
(Norovirus)
Results
During dry weather, norovirus was only detected in five (5) samples or about 7%u of the
75 samples. At North Side, only one (1) outfall sample (one [1] of 25 samples [4%n1) had
a detectable norovirus concentration. During the Stickney dry weather sampling, three (3)
of 25 samples (12%) had detectable norovirus concentrations, During the dry weather
sampling the Stickney WRP outfall did not have any detectable norovirus concentrations.
During the Calumet wet weather sampling, only one (1) outfall sample (one [1] of 25
samples [4%]) had a detectable norovirus concentration. Norovirus infection is most
common in the winter and that may explain the low concentration of norovirus observed
in this study (Cerba, 2006),
Wet Weather
Calicivirus
(Norovirus) Results
During wet weather,
Calicivir
us
or norovirus were only detected in 20 s
amples
or 40% of
the 50 samples
.
The greatest concentr
ation of norovirus was observed at RAMS, which is
located upstream of the Stickney WRP.
During; the North Side wet weather sampling, seven (7) of 16 samples (44%) had
detectable norovirus concentrations.
There were no detectable concentrations of
norovirus upstream of the North Side WRP.
Only one (1) wet weather outfall sample
Final Wetdry-April 20(38'
Xxv11

 
Geosynte&
conssiltants
was collected at the North Side WRP and it did not have a detectable norovirus
concentration.
Due to safety concerns, the discharge of the NBPS was sampled at the
nearest downstream location. One (1) of three (3) NBPS samples had detectable
norovirus concentration.
During the Stickney wet weather sampling, 10 of 16 samples (63%) had detectable
norovirus concentrations.
Two (2) upstream and five (5) downstream samples had
detectable norovirus concentrations.
Only one (I) wet weather outfall sample was
collected at the Stickney WRP; this sample had a detectable norovirus concentration.
Two (2) of the three (3) RAPS samples had detectable concentrations of norovirus
During the Calumet wet weather sampling, three (3) of 18 samples (17%) had detectable
norovirus concentrations. There were no detectable norovirus concentrations upstream of
the Calumet WRP. There was only one (1) detectable concentration downstream of the
Calumet WRP. Two (2) of the three (3) wet weather outfall samples collected at the
Calumet WRP had detectable norovirus concentrations,
Comparison of Dry and Wet Weather
Calicivirus
(Norovirus)
Results
The results indicate that the percentage of norovirus detections during wet weather were
greater than the dry weather detections. The percentage of adenovirus detections at the
North Side waterway segment increased from
4°Io
during dry weather to 44%n during wet
weather.
The percentage of adenovirus detections at the Stickney waterway segment
increased from 12% during dry weather to 63% during wet weather. The percentage of
norovirus detections at the Calumet waterway segment increased from 4% during dry
weather to 17% during wet weather. In addition, the concentrations detected during wet
weather sampling are generally greater than the dry weather concentrations.
Final
Wetdry-April 2008'
xxviii

 
Geosynwc°
consultanLs
''Wastewater DisinfeCOOII
According to
WERF
(2005), disinfection is warranted in situations where direct human
contact in the immediate vicinity of an outfall is possible or where effluent is discharged
to areas involving the production of human food. Disinfection is warranted in situations
where its application leads to a reduction in the risk of disease transmission.
As
illustrated
by post-disinfection re-growth of bacteria, relatively poor virucidal
performance, and generation of persistent disinfection by products (DBPs), it is not clear
that wastewater disinfection always yields improved effluent or receiving water quality
(WERF,
2005).
The effectiveness of the following disinfection technologies were
evaluated for the risk assessment study:
• Ultra Violet (UV)
• Qzonation
• Chlorination
/
Dechlorination
The effectiveness of disinfection is a complex function of several variables including type
and dose of disinfectant, type and concentration of microorganisms, contact time, and
water quality characteristics. In most cases, pilot-studies and other considerations guide
the selection process.
If available, published data regarding pathogen inactivation
achieved by disinfection are typically used to estimate the concentration of pathogens in
disinfected wastewater.
There is great variability in the performance and uncertainty in the efficacy of
disinfection (see Table ES-1),
There are many unanswered questions with respect to
disinfection efficiency data for microbial indicators and pathogens.
Therefore, it is
uncertain if disinfection designed to remove indicators can be effective in the removal of
pathogens and in the reduction of pathogen risks.
In applying any disinfectant, it is important to strike a balance between risks associated
with
microbial pathogens and those associated with DBPs.
DBPs are persistent
chemicals, some of which have relevant toxicological characteristics.
The inventory of
DBPs that have the potential to cause adverse health effects is large and highly variable
among publicly owned treatment works (POTW) effluents.
rinaf wet(try-April 20
08
xxix

 
Geosyntec d
consultants
The human health effects associated with chemical contaminants that are influenced or
produced as a result of disinfection operations tend to be chronic in nature. Therefore,
the development of a risk assessment for exposure to chemical constituents
,
including
DBPs, is far more complex than the microbial risk assessment
.
Risk assess
m
ents of
wastewater disinfection should consider microbial and chemical quality.
The health
effects of disinfectants are generally evaluated by epidemiological studies and/or
toxicological studies using laboratory animals
(WERF,
2005).
/Microbial Risk Assessment
Microbial risk assessment techniques were used to quantitatively assess the health frisks
for the use of recreational waters that receive effluent discharges. The goal of the study
was to determine the expected number of illnesses associated with designated usage of
the
waterways both with and without disinfection of WISP effluent
.
A probabilistic
analysis
was employed that used input assumptions drawn from site specific and
scientific literature sources.
Risks were estimated for recreational users participating in
activities involving different levels of exposure in dry, wet, or a combination of weather
events over the course of a recreational year.
Micr
o
bial Risk Methodology
Risk assessment inputs were drawn extensively from site
-
specific
data and were
developed using state-of-the-science methodology to accurately represent recreational
user exposure conditions and risks.
Recreational survey studies were used to provide
insight on the types and frequency of recreational exposure expected in the waterway.
For quantitative risk analysis, the UAA study was used as the primary source for
exposure use data for the CWS. As a part of the UAA, the CWS was divided
i
nto three
major waterway segments each associated with a single WRP. Recreational use was
divided into high
(
canoeing
), m
edium (fishing
)
and low
(
pleasure boating
)
exposure
activities.
UAA
survey data was used to estimate the proportion of recreational users
participating in each receptor scenario along each waterway segment.
Final Wctdry
-April 200
8'
XXX

 
Geosyntee °
consultants
Exposure parameters were developed as distributional parameters for each receptor
scenario as inputs to the exposure
model.
These parameters include incidental ingestion
rates and exposure duration
.
Selection of input distributions relied on literature derived
sources, site-specific use information and professional judgment.
Dose-response parameters define the mathematical relationship between the dose of a
pathogenic organis
m
and the probability of infection or illness in exposed persons. Dose-
response data are typically derived from either controlled human feeding studies or
reconstruction of doses from outbreak
i
ncidences. In human feeding trials volunteers are
fed pathogens in different doses and the percentage of subjects experiencing the effect
(either illness or
i
nfection) are calculated
.
While feeding trials can provide useful dose-
response analysis data
,
studies are usually performed in healthy individuals given high
levels of a single strain.
Epidemiological outbreak studies provide responses on a larger
cross-section of the population but dose reconstruction is often problematic.
Dose-
response data was developed from regulatory documents, industry white papers and peer
reviewed literature.
Concentrations of pathogens in the waterway were selected for each simulation from the
entire dataset of dry and wet weather samples collected. The proportion of dry and wet
weather samples utilized were weighted to account for the proportion of dry and wet
weather clays in a typical Chicago recreational season.
Microb
ial Risk Results
results of the risk assessment demonstrate that risks to recreational users under various
weather and use scenarios is low and within the EPA recommended risk limits for
primary contact exposure. The highest rates of illness were associated with recreational
use on the Stickney and North Side waterway segments and the lowest illness rate on the
Calumet waterway
segment, Illness rates were higher under wet weather conditions than
under dry weather conditions (scc 'T'able ES-2). The results demonstrate that the expected
illness rates for receptors were all below the proposed EPA limit of 14 illnesses per 1000
exposure events for freshwater recreational use including immersion
/
swinirning
activities.
final Wetdry-April 2008`
XXXi

 
GeosyntecD
consultants
Risks
were also calculated individually for each of the three different classes of
recreational use that span the range of exposures reported in the UAA survey in
proportion to the frequency of use for each waterway segment, The recreational activity
with the highest potential for illness was fishing while that with the lowest potential for
illness was pleasure boating.
Which recreational activity results in the greatest number of
affected users, however, depends on both the proportion of user's engaged in that activity
and the pathogen load in that waterway segment. For example, in the North Side
segment, 33.7% of the gastrointestinal illnesses are predicted to result from canoeing, but
canoeing accounts for only 20% of the users of the North Side waterway. In the Stickney
and Calumet segments, the predicted illnesses were predominantly from fishing and
boating due to the low frequency of canoeists in these waterway segments. To further
evaluate the risk stratified by the recreational use activity, risk per 1040 exposure events
were computed separately for canoeing, boating, and fishing recreational uses (see 'f'able
ES-3). As expected, the highest risks were associated with recreational use by the highest
exposure group (i.e. canoeing). However, for each waterway the risks associated with the
highest expostu•e use are below the proposed EP,A, limit of 14 illnesses per 1000 exposure
events for freshwater recreational use including immersion/swimming activities,
For the North Side and Stickney waterway segments, the majority of predicted illnesses
were the result of concentrations of viruses,
E. eoli
and
Giardia.
For the Calumet
waterway the risks are generally lower with multiple organisms contributing to overall
risk.
Secondary transmission for these pathogens resulted in an approximately two-fold
increase in population illness associated with the primary recreational user illnesses.
However, secondary transmission rates are higher for the North Side and Stickney
waterway segments where the highly communicable norovirus is a dominant pathogen.
Secondary transmission considers spread from individuals who may become infected but
not ill, a common condition for a number of these pathogens.
EtTect of Effluent Disinfection on Pathogen Microbial Risks
The results of this study demonstrate that disinfection of WRP effluents will have a
negligible effect on risk for recreational users of the waterway. The effects of various
Fiml WctdryApril 2008`
xxxii

 
Geosyntecd
consultants
disinfection techniques on risk reduction were estimated for combined wet and dry
weather days.
Dry weather sampling data was used to estimate the waterway load that
would be affected by disinfection
.
Wet weather sampling data was assumed to
encompass both effluent loading
(
attenuated by disinfection
)
and non
-
point discharges to
the
waterway (e.g. CSO, pumping stations, stormwater outfalls).
Disinfection of the
effluent outfall was predicted to result in a decrease in effluent pathogen loads but have a
much lower effect on overall pathogen concentrations in the waterway (see Table ES-4).
This is because the sampling data shows that a large proportion of the pathogen load
results from sources other than the WRP effluent.
Disinfection results in effluent
pathogen risk decreasing from a low level to essentially zero but has little impact in
waterway pathogen concentrations affected by current or past wet weather conditions.
These results suggest that disinfection of effluent has little impact on the overall illness
rates from recreational use of the CWS.
Non-Grastroilntest:inal
Microbial Risks
Although
Pseudomonas aeruginosa
is
not a pathogen that is linked to gastrointestinal
illness, this pathogen has been linked to recreational illness outbreaks involving dermal
(foliculitis
),
eye, and ear (otitis externia
)
infections
.
For this reason, the levels of
Pseudosnona
.
s
aeruginosa
were evaluated under the sampling program for this risk
assessment
,
However, quantitative evaluation of the risk for this pathogen is
problematic.
There are no published dose-response relationships for
Pseudomonas
aerugino.sa.
Without a clear dose
-
response relationship there is no way to establish the
expected illness level associated with any particular waterway concentration
.
The dermal
pathway for estimating exposure to
Pseudomonas aeruginosa
is
also problematic. Ear
and eye infections associated with contact by
P.seudomonas aeruginosa
contaminated
water are typically associated with full immersion activities.
Since these types of
activities are not permitted or designated uses of
the CAW
the incidence of car and eye
exposures are expected to be low and as the result of accidental or intentional misuse of
the waterway
.
Pseudomonas
related
foliculitis commonly
requires a break
i
n the skin
from a preexisting out, open sore or scrape as an entry point for infection.
Immunocompetent
i
ndividuals
without skin abrasions rarely develop foliculitis by
final
WctdryApril 2008'
XXXM

 
Geosyntec°
consultants
exposure to
intact skin
.
For these reasons
, a quantitative
evaluation of risks is not
feasible,
A qualitative review of the wet and dry weather data, however, may provide some insight
on the relative risk from
Pseudom.on.as
exposure.
Comparison of the waterway level to
the outfall levels may also provide an indication on the effectiveness that a disinfection
step may have on
Pseudomonas
levels in the waterway.
Wet weather levels are higher
than dry weather conditions. Perhaps more importantly, the outfall samples show lower
levels of
Pseudomonas
than the corresponding wet weather samples. This suggests that
the major inputs for
Pseudomona
s
in
the waterways are sources other than the WRP
effluent.
Therefore, disinfection of the WRP effluent would have minor effects on the
overall loading; of
Pseudomonas
in the waterway and risks associated with recreational
exposure to this pathogen.
Sensitivity Analysis
A sensitivity analysis
was conducted to identify the contribution of each input
distribution to the variance of the resulting risk estimates
.
The actual pathogen dose
levels from the combined wet and dry weather assessment were used. Results from the
sensitivity analysis indicate that the incidental ingestion rates and weather are the largest
contributors to the North Side waterway segment
.
Recreational user type followed by
incidental ingestion rate
,
exposure duration and weather contributes the most to the
variance for the Stickney and Calumet waterway segments.
Conclusions
'rhe results from this study indicate that, despite elevated levels of fecal indicator
bacteria, the concentrations of actual pathogenic organisms in the waterway are low.
Given the low pathogen levels in the waterway, there is a low probability of developing
gastrointestinal illness even in areas of the CWS in close proximity to the District's non-
disinfected
WRP effluents
.
For the designated recreational uses evaluated, the risks of
developing illness, both with and without disinfection for each waterway segments, are
below the EPA guideline of 14 illnesses per 1,000 exposures for fresh water recreation
final
weldry
-
Apsil 2
(
Hl8'
xXXiv

 
Geosyntec O
consultants
including immersion and swimming
.
The pathogen concentrations within the waterway
are largely a result of non-WRP derived wet weather
inputs
.
Disinfection of the WRP
effluent would have marginal impact on CWS pathogen concentrations. These results
confirm that current health risks to CWS recreators are low and disinfection of treated
wastewater effluent would have little impact on the overall gastrointestinal illness rates.
References
Chang, J.C.H., S.F. Ossoff, D.C. Lobe, M.H. Dorfman, C. Dumais, R.G. Qualls, and J.D.
Johnson, 1985,
"UV Inactivation of Pathogenic and Indicator Microorganisms, "
Applied and Environmental Microbiology, June, p. 1361-1365.
Clancy, J.L., Linden, K .G., and McCuin, R.M., 2004,
"Cryptosporidium. Occurrence in
Wastewaters and Control. Using UV Disinfection", IUVA News,
Vol. 6, No. 3,
September.
EPA, 1986, Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria, EPA-440/5-84-002.
EPA, 1996, ICR Microbial Laboratory
Manual,
EPA/600/R-95/178. April.
EPA, 1999,
Alternative Disinfectants and Oxidants Guidance Manual,
EPA 815-R-99-
014, April.
EPA, 2001, Method 1623:
Cgpto.sporidiuin
and
Giardia
in
Water Filtration/IMS/FA,
EPA-821-R-01-025. April.
EPA, 2001a, Method 1106.1:
Enterococci
in
Water by Membrane Filtration Using
membrane-Ettterococcus-Esculin Iron
Agar (mE-EIA),
EPA 821-R-02-021.
September.
EPA, 2002, Method 1103.1:
T:scherichia soli (E. cols)
in Water Membrane Filtration
Using membrane-Thermotolerant
Escherichia coli
Agar (nffEC), EPA-821-R-2-
020. September.
EPA, 2003,
Source
Water
Monitoring Guidance Manual for
Public Water
Systems for the
Long Terre 2 Enhanced
Surface
Water Treatment Rule. CPA 815-
D-03-005. June.
Gerba, 2006,
Personal Communication.
Gerba, C,P., Gramos,
D.M.,
Nwachuku, N., 2002,
"Comparative Inactivation of
Enteroviruses and Adenovirus 2 by UV Light", Applied and Environmental
Microbiology", pp.
5167-5169, Vol. 68, No. 10, October.
Final Wetdry--April 2008'
XXXV

 
GensyntecO
consultants
Health Canada,
2004,
"Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality: Supporting
Documentation-Enteric Viruses",
April.
Helsel
D. R.
and R.M. Hirsch, 2002, Techniques of Water Resources Investigations
of
The United States Geological Survey. Book. 4, Hydrological Analysis and
Interpretation.
Chapter 3, Statistical Methods in
Water Resources. USGS
publication available at: http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/twri/twri4a3/. September.
Helsel
Dennis R., 2005, Non Detects and Data Analysis, Statistics for Censored
Environmental Data. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey. PP 55 - 80,
pp. 185-196.
Metropolitan
Water Reclamation District of Greaten Chicago (MWRDGC), 2004,
Description of the Chicago Waterway System, Uye Attainability Analysis Study,
December.
Minitab: Copyright 2005, Minitab Inc., Minitab 14.2. Copyright 2005, The R Foundation
for Statistical Computing. Version 2.2.0 (200510-06 r35749). ISBN 3-300051-
07-0
Nelson, K., Sheikh, B., Cooper, R.C., Holden, R., and Israel, K., undated,
"Efficacy of
Pathogen Removal During Full-Scale Operation of Water Reuse Facilities in
Monterey, California."
Paraskeva
,
P. and Graham, N. J.D., 2002,
"Ozonation of Municipal
Wastewater
Effluents
'",
Writer Environment Research
,
Vol. 74,
No. 6, November
/
December.
Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 1998, 20`h Edition.
Method
9222D
.
Fecal Coliforrn
Membrane Filter Procedure;
Method 9213E.
Membrane Filter Technique for
Pseudornonas aeruginosa
;
Method 9260B.
General Quantitative Isolation and Identification Procedures for
Salmonella;
Method 9260D
.
Quantitative
Salmonella
Procedures.
Thurston-Enriquez, J.A., Haas, C.N., Jacangelo, J., Riley, K., and Gerba, C.P., 2003,
"Inactivation of Feline Calicivirus and Adenovirus Type 40 by UV Radiation",
Applied and Environmental Microbiology,
pp. 577-582, Vol. 69, No. 1, January.
Thurston-Enriquez, J.A., Haas, C.N., Jacangelo, J., Gerba, C.P., 2003x,
"Chlorine
Inactivation of Adenovirus Type 40 and Feline Cali.civirus, "
Applied and
Environmental Microbiology, pp. 3979-85, Vol. 69, No. 7, July.
Thurston-Enriquez, J.A., Maas, C.N., Jacangelo, J., Gerba, C.P., 2005, Inactivation of
Enteric Adenovirus and Feline Calicivirus by Ozone, Water Resources, pp.
3650-
6, Vol. 39, No. 15.
Final
wetdry-Apri3 2008'
xxxvi

 
Geosyntec°
consultants
Water Environment Research Foundation (WERP),
2005,
"Effects
of Wastewater
Disinfection on Human Health.."
99-HHE-1.
Final
Welclry-April 2008
'
xxxvii

 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TABLES

 
Table ES-1
.
Summary of Pathogen Disinfection Efficiencies
Ch1o^`
tna#^flechla^natfln^°;,i
Notes:
^`Salmone-Ba
Enterococci
^ dog {Note:`.
4 log (Note 8)
4 trig 'Note' l
Not Available
(Note 8)
(1)
E1'A (1999)
(9)
Thurston-Enriquez et al. (2005); results obtained in
(2)
Paraskova and Graham (2002)
buffered disinfectant demand free water at 5°C and pH 7.
(3)
Clancy (2004)
These conditions may not be representative of wastewater.
(4)
Nelson et al. (undated)
(10)
Chang et al. (1985)
(5)
Health Canada (2004)
0 1)
Thurston-Enriquez eta]. (2003a)
(5)
Gerba e€ al. (2402)
(3)
Thurstoa-
Enriquez et
al. (2003)
(8)
WERF
(2005)
L. coil
I'seudomonas aerug
iizosa
^ dog; {Nate 8^
> 4 log (Note 8)
Nc^t
Ava^la^l
More resistant than
E. coli

 
Table ES-2
'!total E
xpected Primary Illnesses per 1
,
000 Exposures under Combined Dry and
Wet
Weather Using Different
E
ffluent Disinfection Techniques
Exposure Input
Waterway w_.
North Side
Stickney
Calumet
Dry Weather y^^
036
1.28
0.10
Wet Weather
2.78
2.34
4.36
Combined
Weather Samples
1.55
1.77
0.21
Note:
Includes all primary gastrointestinal ilinesses from E,
eoli, Salmonella,
total
cnleric
viruses,
adenoviruses,
Giardia,
and
Cryprosporidiram
expected from the waterway exposures.
Waterway
concentration inputs for the simulations were randornly sclccted (bootstrap sampled) frown datasets that
include tho indicated sample sets.

 
Table ES-3
Estimated Illness Rates Assuming Single Recreational Use with No Effluent
Disinfection
Illnesses per 1
,
000 Exposures for Combined Wet
and Dry Weather Samples
Recreational Use
North Side
-
Stickney
Calumet
Canoeing
2.45
3.19
0.52
Fishing
1.42
1.90
0, 31
Pleasure
Boating
0.66
1.05
0.14
Note;
Includes all primary gastrOintestinal illnesses
from E.
coh, Sa
lmonella,
total
enteric
viruses,
adenoviruses
,
Giardia,
and
Cr yplosporidiu»r
expected frott) the waterway exposures.

 
Table ES-4
Effect of Disinfection on Expected Recreational Illnesses per 1000 Exposures
Waterwa
y
No Disinfection
North Side
1.53
Stickney
1.74
Calumet
0.20
UV Irradiation
1.32
1.48
0.17
Ozone
1.45
1.65
0.19
Chlorination
1.43
1.63
0.19
Note:
Estimates based on geometric anean pathogen concentrations and central tendency estimates for exposure
assumptions
.
Waterway pathogen concentrations were developed by the difference in wet and dry
disinfected concentrations
.
Includes all primary gastrointestinal illnesses from Is,
cols
, Salmone
lla,
total
enteric viruse,% adenoviruses
,
Giardia,
and
Cr)ptospoildhan
e
xpected from the waterway exposures.

 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
FIGURES

 
FIGURE ES-1
CHICAGO WATERWAY SYSTEM - DRY WEATHER SAMPLING LOCATIONS
METROPOLITAN WATER RECLAMATION DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO
LMETTE PUMPING
11
STATJON
41.1
LEGEND
• MAJOR WRP INFLOW
n
MINOR WRP INFLOW
- CHICAGO WATERWAY
SYSTEM SECONDARY
CONTACT
-- OTHER WATERWAYS
GENERAL USE
+
CHICAGO WATERWAY
SYSTEM GENERAL USE
-
OTHER WATERWAYS
SECONDARY CONTACT
9.9 MILES UPSTREAM OF T=om
LOCKPORT
M FLOW
0
COMKLUENCE WIT) THE
DES PLAtNES RVER
•1.1 JOLIET
La+u
OCKPORT POWERHOUSE
ANDLOCK
0.0
OWM1A'iT'E LCr.nr.
Y}l'.CiTCA
.
eLCLV:
:Iwcr:,o..: vt
^wrG.l•r A.^tl,
i
3^ •iJ
;+:ra xvevnLt
>-:aLCVr;^.;rs
wa:a. T'uu I
:
}a wcv _f.o
as: t:tH,evslm+.r
..r urrva•.r v.r
•:^Nlz^ s-eecr
n.cu?^h
r^n,.v
• n:; IV:.v
Iwin1sJr:
n:erza A,cv,a
I-II I:I r
^
crr.^Ly
ICALS WMAS
rnr
L
f UPSTRE AND DOWNSTREAM ORYI LRTHIR
SAMPLSNS LOCATION
0 AMBIENT SAM LINO STATION
,
- NORTH BRANCH PUMPING STATION (RaPSj
LAKE
MICHW AN
NORTH
&qANCM
CANU
RACINE AVENUE PUMPING
STATION (RAPS)

 
FIGURE ES -2
CHICAGO WATERWAY
SYSTEM - WET WEATHER SAMPLING LOCATIONS
METROPOLITAN
WATER
RECLAMATION
DISTRICT OF
GREATER
CHICAGO
LEGEND
• MAJOR WRP INFLOW
M MINOR WRP INFLOW
CHICAGO WATERWAY
SYSTEM SECONDARY
CONTACT
- OTHER WATERWAYS
GENERAL USE
moo CHICAGO WATERWAY
SYSTEM
GENERAL USE
OTHER WATERWAYS
SECONDARY CONTACT
9.9 MILES UPSTREAM OF 7x4
LOCKPORT
f FLOW
^rcrw
uy^A.uu
x^: crxa A,iwx
rYwtWnrnuf
rY)^.^,L y._.E
x.
1
rawowc wo
i:+Q'.Y iSCV PM,4k:
I^iAA':
l H T
}gi^S^LP 51n[[i
WF
up
A^ry,/
LLCSf FO ntiENJF
KI
u +r^1
LcGExo
ScAL9 W YLCS
e5e5^5
a AYLa
:N7 SAWL GSWGN
' OPSTREAM ANO 00WkffTRgAY WET "EATER
SANPUIRO LGURON

 
Geosyntec
consultants
1.
INTRODUCTION
The
Metropolitan
Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago (MWRDGC or
District
)
has retained The Geosyntec Team
,
which
i
ncludes Geosyntec Consultants
(Geosyntec) and its subcontractors: Patterson Environmental Consultants (PEC); Cecil
Lue-Hing & Associates (CLHA); Dr. Charles Gerba of the University of Arizona (UA),
Hoosier
Microbiological
Laboratory,
Inc. (HML); and Clancy Environmental
Consultants, Inc. (CEC) to perform a Risk Assessment of Human Health Impacts of
Disinfection Vs. No Disinfection of the Chicago Area Waterways System CWS .
The CWS consists of 78 miles of canals, which serve the Chicago area for two principal
purposes: the drainage of urban storm water runoff and treated municipal wastewater
effluents from the District's three major water reclamation plants (WRP) (North Side,
Stickney and Calumet
),
and the support of commercial navigation
(
see Figure 1-1).
Approximately 75 percent of the length of the CWS includes mantrtade canals where no
waterway existed previously, and the remainder includes natura
l
streams that have been
deepened, straightened and/or widened to such an extent that reversion to the natural state
is not possible
(MWRDGC, 2004).
The CWS has two river systems: the Calumet River System and the Chicago River
System. The Calumet River System is 23.1 miles in length and includes the Calumet-Sag
Channel (CSC) and the Little Calumet Diver (I..CR). The Chicago River System consists
of 55.1 miles of waterways and includes the Chicago River, Chicago Sanitary and Ship
Canal (CSSC), North Branch, North Branch Canal (NBC), North Shore Channel (NSC),
South Branch and South Fork (MWRDGC, 2004).
By 1972, most
states had adopted bacterial water quality standards, and beginning with
the early enforcement of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(
NPDES)
most municipal sewage treatment facilities were required to meet effluent bacterial
standards.
These effluent bacterial standards were generally met through effluent
disinfection by chlorination.
In 1972, the Illinois Pollution Control Board (IPCB)
adopted year
-
round effluent and water quality bacterial standards
of 400 (
effluent) and
Final
wektsy
-
April 2008
1

 
Geosyntecp
consultants
200 (water quality) fecal coliform colony forming units (CFU) per 100 ml.., respectively
(MSDGC, 1984).
In 1973, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) incorporated a 400 CFU per
1.00
mL fecal coliform secondary effluent standard for all municipal wastewater
treatment facilities.
The fecal coliform standards in both the effluents and receiving
water bodies were clearly intended to prevent or minimize the transmission of pathogens
to persons ingesting or coming in contact with waters which receive the treated
wastewater (MSDGC, 1984). In 1976, EPA deleted the fecal coliform standard from its
definition of secondary treatment, stating that the benefits achieved by disinfection
should be weighed against the environmental risks and costs (MSDGC, 1984).
In 1977, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency JEPA) proposed revisions to the
existing IPCB fecal coliform effluent and water quality standards. The IEPA submitted
these changes to the IPCB for approval. The IPCB held administrative public hearings
(designated R77-12D) to gather testimony regarding these proposed revisions. In 1984,
the Illinois
Appellate Court affirmed the IPCB in its revised regulations, which
eliminated chlorination of effluents discharged to secondary contact waters (MSDGC,
1984).
In 1986, EPA published
Ambient
Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria-1986.
This
document contains EPA's recommended water duality criteria for bacteria to protect
bathers in recreational waters.
The EPA (1986) document identifies the maximum
concentrations of
Escherichia coli (E. soli)
and
enterococci
allowable in fresh and marine
recreational waters. In 1997, EPA established the Beaches Environmental Assessment
and Coastal Health (BEACH) Program to reduce risks to human health caused by
exposure to pathogens in recreational waters.
The BEACH Act of 2000 amended the
Clean Water Act (CWA) by adding Section 303(i)(1)(A), which requires that:
Not later than [April 10, 2004], each State having coastal recreation waters shall
adopt and submit to the Administrator water quality criteria and standards,for the
coastal recreation waters of the ;State for those pathogens and pathogen indicators
for which the Administrator has published criteria under §304(a).
Final
Weldsy-April 2008
2

 
Geosyntec°
consultants
Furthermore, the BEACH Act added Section 502(21) to the CWA, which defines "coastal
recreation
waters" to include the Great Lakes and marine coastal estuaries that are
designated by States under CWA Section 303(c) for swimming,
bathing, surfing, or
similar water contact activities
. The requirements of the BEACH Act do not apply to
Elie CWS.
The IEPA has conducted a Use Attainability Analysis (UAA) of the CWS in accordance
with 40 CFR 131.10(d). The UAA report has proposed water quality standards for the
CWS based on the
Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria-1986
(EPA, 1986) and
EPA guidance (EPA, 2003). In order to assist IEPA in evaluating the proposed bacterial
water quality standards, the District commissioned qualified consultants (research
scientists and water quality experts) to conduct a peer review of the EPA's Water Quality
Criteria for Bacteria - 1986 and the November 2003 draft implementation guidance
document (EPA, 1986 and 2003). The findings of the expert review panel indicated that
there is no scientific basis for developing protective bacteria standards for the designated
recreational uses of the CWS (MWRDGC, 2006). One of the recommendations from the
expert review panel report was that more science is needed before bacteria criteria can be
established for effluent dominated urban waterways (MWRDGC, 2006). To address this
recommendation, the District proposed a microbial risk assessment study to determine
health impacts of recreational use of the CWS assuming disinfected and non-disinfected
effluents from the North Side, Stickney, and Calumet WRPs.
The results of this microbial risk assessment will be evaluated and compared against the
IEPA-proposed bacteria standards for the CWS, The following bacteria standards were
proposed by the UAA report to protect identified uses of the CWS effective 1 March
2010:
The incidental contact recreational waters shall not exceed a 30-day
geometric mean for E.
coli
of 1,030 CFUl100 mL, which is applicable
to the CSSC from its junction with the South Branch of the Chicago
River to California Avenue, and North Side and Calumet waterways.
Final Wctdry
-April 200£3
3

 
GeosyntecO
consulranLs
• The non-contact recreational
water's shall
not exceed a 30-day
geometric mean for
E. coli
of 2,740 CFU/100 mL, which is applicable
to the Calumet River and Lower Des Plaines River from its confluence
with the CSSC locations.
Currently, there are no bacteria standards for the non-recreational
waters
applicable to the CSSC from California Avenue to the
confluence of the Des Plaines River location.
The IEPA rejected these proposed standards and instead proposed WRP effluent fecal
coliform standards of 400 CFU/100 mL. The IEPA also required effluent disinfection in
order to achieve this standard.
Over time, there have been major improvements in water
quality,
altered land use and additional public access along the CWS.
Such
improvements and conditions have produced both greater opportunity and heightened
public interest in environmental and recreational uses within and along the waterways.
Currently, the waterways are used for recreational boating, canoeing, fishing and other
strearnside recreational activities.
These waterways also provide aquatic habitat for
wildlife.
About 70 percent of the annual flows in the CWS are from the discharge of
treated municipal wastewater effluent froze the District's WRPs (MWRDGC:, 2004).
The IF..
PA along with other federal, state and local agencies has initiated a multi-year,
comprehensive evaluation of the waterways known as the
UAA, to identify
future uses of
the waterways for commercial and recreational activities
.
Treated
,
but non-disinfected
wastewater effluent
i
s one of several sources that contribute to the presence of indicator
bacteria and pathogens in the waterways
.
Other pathogen sources include the following
(h(tp://www.Chic4ggAreaWaterw
y5.or_g}:
Faulty sewage disposal systems
Combined and sanitary sewer overflows
• Wild and domestic animal waste
Illegal discharges to drains and sewers
Storin water runoff
Final Weuiry-Aril 2008
4

 
Geosyntec°
consultants
• "Treated
,
but non
-
disinfected wastewater effluent
The UAA Stakeholders evaluating the CWS have agreed that swimming and other
primary contact recreation should not be considered as a viable designated use for the
CWS because of physical limitations due to the configuration of the embankments and
safety hazards. The Geosyntec 'T'eam has relied on UAA existing recreational use survey
data for the CWS.
Where possible, The Geosyntec Team supplemented the data with
information presented in the technical literature.
1.1
Project O
b
ieetive and
_
Pr^ect Tasks
The main objective of this risk assessment study was to evaluate the human health impact
of continuing the current practice of not disinfecting the effluents
from the
District's
Calumet, North Side, and Stickney WRPs versus initiating disinfection of the effluent at
these three WRPs. This Risk Assessment Study includes two phases: Phase
I dry
weather
risk assessment and Phase 11 wet weather risk assessment
,
The dry
weather risk
assessment sampling was completed in the summer of 2005. The climatic conditions
during the 2005 sampling
;
period were not suitable for conducting wet weather sampling.
The wet weather sampling took place between June and October of 2006. Dry and wet
weather microbial sampling results of the surface water in the CWS and the WRP
effluents formed the basis for the risk assessment. The dry and wet weather microbial
results were integrated to enable an evaluation of the potential impacts of disinfection on
overall risks associated with the recreational use of the waterway.
To accomplish the main project objective, The Geosyntec Team completed the following
project tasks:
1. Prepared Dry and Wet Weather Sampling and Analysis Plans (SAPS) and Quality
Assurance Project Plans
(
QAPPs
)
to generate microbial analytical results that
formed the basis of the microbial risk assessment
2. Provided field training to the Distr'ict's sampling personnel
3. Completed a Microbial Risk Assessment,
including:
a. Literature review of pathogen disinfection effectiveness
l;mal Wetdiy
-
April 2008
5

 
Geosyntec°
consultants
b.
Microbial exposure assessment by literature review
c.
Microbial infection dose-response analysis by literature review
d.
Microbial risk characterization of three waterway segments: North Side,
Stickney and Calumet
Geosyntec prepared Dry and Wet Weather SAPS and QAPPs in collaboration with the
District and the Geosyntec team of experts.
The SAP documented the sampling
locations, procedures and acceptable wet weather sampling criteria and triggers,
including but not limited to rainfall depth, duration, intensity and antecedent dry period.
The dry weather QAPP was applicable to the samples collected during wet weather,
because the same pathogens were analyzed by the same laboratories both for dry and wet
weather.
However, the wet weather QAPP specified additional requirements for pathogen
samples regarding sample dilution, filtration volume, and reporting requirements.
1.2
Report Org
anization
This report summarizes the results of the microbial risk assessment based on dry and wet
weather sampling and analytical results. Section 2 discusses microbial sampling and
analysis. Section 3 presents microbial analytical results. Section 4 discusses wastewater
disinfection. Section 5 presents the dry and wet weather microbial risk assessment
results.
1.3
References
EPA, 1986, Bacteriological Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Marine and Fresh
Recreational Waters, EPA 440/5-84-002. January.
EPA, 2003, Implementation Guidance for Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria.
EPA-823-B-03-xxx. November. DRAFT.
Illinois Pollution Control Board (IPCB) Proceedings, Rule 77-121), Docket D, Exhibit
15, Letter of G.F. Mallison, Dated January 20, 1977.
Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago (MSDGC), 1984, Wastewater
Disinfection: A Review of Technical and Legal Aspects in Illinois.
Department
of Research and Development. Report No. 84-17. July.
Final Weidry-April 2009
6

 
Geosyntec °
consultants
Metropolitan
Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago (MWRDGC), 2004,
Description of the Chicago Waterway Systern, Use Attainability Analysis Study,
December.
Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago (MWRDGC), 2006, Expert
Review Report Regarding United States Environmental Protection Agency's
Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria - 1986: Application to Secondary Contact
Recreation. July,
Final WmdryApAii 2009
7

 
SECTION I
FIGURES

 
MEETROPOL
FTAN WATER RECLAMATION DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO
CHICAGO WATERWAY SYSTEM
WSzm
0 MAJOR WRP INFLOW
11
MINOR WRP INFLOW
.....
C1410AGO WATERWAY
SYSTEM SECONDARY
CONTACT
- OTHER WATERWAYS
GENERAL USE
r..« OiifOA
0
0 WATERWAY
SYSTEM GENr:RAL USE
OTHER WATERWAYS
SECONDARY
CONTACT
9.9 MILES UPSTREAM OF 77?
LOCKPORT
-q- FLOW
xur:a wisp
FIGURE NO: 1-1
Geosysttcc 11
CHICAGO,
IMINOIS
I+RciJF.C^r{q;
r:rarrr,i a0o^
I'Ir;uRr!NO.:
Alf
:
tt ,40V 9007
Fa f. i10
..
FfG+•CW&

 
Geosyntec a
consultants
2.
MICROBIAL
SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS
One of the components of the risk assessment was to conduct sampling and analysis of
the CWS. This section discusses the field sampling procedures used to ensure the
collection of representative data during dry and wet weather sampling.
Dry weather
sampling was conducted between July and September 2005 in accordance with the
procedures in the SAP and QAPP for the CWS (Geosyntec, 2005). Wet weather sampling
was conducted between June and October 2006 in accordance with the procedures in the
Wet Weather SAP and QAPP for the CWS (Geosyntec, 2006).
Dr. Charles Ger-ba of the University of Arizona provided on-site training to the District
personnel on sample collection procedures.
MWRDGC personnel collected the samples
using the District's boats at the designated sampling locations using the procedures in the
SAP and QAPP.
2.1
Rationale for Indicator and Patho
g
enic Microor
g
anism Selection
The primary objective of the microbial examination of the CWS was the detection of
fecal pollution that may be excreted in the feces of humans and animals. The direct
detection of pathogenic bacteria, viruses, and protozoa requires costly and time-
consuming procedures and well-trained technicians. In addition, there are no standard
methods available to detect each pathogen possibly present in the CWS.
This study focused on the detection of microorganisms typically present in the feces of
humans and other warm-blooded animals, as indicators of fecal pollution,
Hence, a
group of EPA-approved indicator microorganisms, such as E.
coli, enterococei,
and fecal
coliform was selected. In addition, pathogens representative of those present in the
wastewater that are also of public health concern were selected.
Some of these
microorganisms were identified by Mead et al. (1999) and WERF (2004).
Table 2-1 presents a summary of the microorganisms selected for this microbial risk
assessment study.
The rationale for selecting the pathogens for this microbial risk
assessment study included the following criteria:
Final Weldry-April 2008
8

 
Geosynte&
consultants
The pathogens selected are associated with documented outbreaks of disease,
including gastrointestinal and respiratory diseases and infections
There are EPA-approved methods or laboratory standard operating procedures
(SOPS) available for the trteasurernent of the selected pathogens.
2.2
Sa
i
nl2lin
g
Objectives
The objective of the sampling was to determine the concentrations of the following
indicators and pathogens during the 2005 (dry weather) and 2046 (wet weather)
recreational seasons:
Enteric viruses: i) total culturable viruses, (ii) viable adenovirus; and (iii)
Calicivirus
+ Infectious
Cryptosporidium parmin
and viable
Gicardia lamblia
+
Salmonella
spp.
• Pseudomonas aeruginosa
• Fecal coliforms
• E. colt
Enterococci
2.2.1
Dry Weather Sampling Objectives
The specific objectives of dry weather sampling were as follows:
1.
Evaluate the impact of the treated effluent from the District's three major WRPs
(North Side, Stickney, and Calumet) on the microbial quality of the CWS.
2.
Estimate health risks to recreational users of the CWS due to incidental contact
pathogen exposure under dry weather conditions.
3.
Quantify any reduction of risk that would result from disinfection of WRP
effluents during dry weather.
During the 2005 dry weather sampling, samples were taken at locations upstream,
downstream and at the outfalls of the Stickney, Calumet and North Side WRPs (see
Figure 2-1).
The sampling plan provided a detailed sampling strategy, including
sampling locations, the number of samples and sampling frequency. Five dry weather
Final
Wetdry-April 2008
9

 
Geosynte&
consultants
sampling events took place over a 5-week period, which began the week of 26 July 2005.
Seventy five
(
75) samples were collected
(
five events at each of the three [31 WRPs; 5
samples per event at each WRP). The number of samples collected during dry weather
sampling at each location is summarized in Table 2-2.
2.2.2
Wet Weather Sampli
n
g Objectives
The specific objectives of wet weather sampling were as follows:
1. Evaluate the impact of wet weather
flow on
the microbial
duality of the WRP
outfalls.
2.
Evaluate the impact of combined sewer overflows (CSOs) on the microbial
quality of the CWS.
3.
Estimate health risks to recreational users of the CWS due to incidental contact
pathogen exposure under wet weather conditions.
4.
Quantify any reduction of risk that would result from disinfecting WRP effluents
during wet weather.
It
has been established in the technical literature that wet weather contributes
significantly to the microbial load in surface water due to surface runoff and
Ms.
Several sources contribute to the microbial load in the waterway during wet weather.
CSOs, discharges from storm drains, overland runoff, land use activities (such as
agriculture and construction
),
erosion, and habitat destruction.
A total of nine (9) sampling events took place during the 2006 wet weather recreational
season between the months of June and October 2006. Three (3) sampling events took
place at each of the North Side, Stickney and Calumet WRPs. The sampling plan
provided a detailed sampling strategy, including sampling locations, the number of
samples and sampling frequency. Based on the sampling locations outlined in Section
2.2.1, the number of samples collected during wet weather sampling at each location are
summarized in Table 2-2
.
The wet weather sampling program included fifty (50)
samples for each of the pathogens discussed above.
r'inal
Wetdry-April 2008
10

 
Geospte&
consultants
Sampling protocols and methods of analysis were specified according to EPA-approved
methods where possible.
When EPA-approved methods were not available, laboratory
SOPS were used.
2.3
Field
Sam
p
lin
g
Procedures
This section discusses: (1)
microbial sampling locations; (2) sample collection
equipment, material and procedures; (3) sample identification; (4) sample custody; (5)
sample packaging, shipment and tracking; (6) waste management; and (7) health and
safety procedures.
2.3.E
Microbial
Sampling Locations
Samples were taken at locations upstream, downstream, and at the outfalls of the
Stickney, Calumet, and North Side WRPs. In selecting the sampling locations the
following factors were also considered: 1) locations of pumping stations for combined
sewer outflows; 2) recreational navigation; and 3) commercial navigation (barge traffic).
Boat traffic, especially commercial barge traffic, can have a significant effect on the
water quality in the CWS through re-suspension of sediment containing attached
microorganisms. In accordance with MWRDGC sampling, procedures, when there was
barge traffic during the sampling events the sampling stopped and commenced 30
minutes after the barge passed, The sampling personnel recorded traffic of recreational
boats and barges during sampling.
The Stickney WRP discharges to the CSSC; the Calumet WRP discharges to the LCR
that in turn discharges to CSC, and the North Side; WRP discharges to the NSC (see
1~i0gure 2-1).
The following sections present the physical description of the above-
mentioned waterways and the sampling locations.
Physical Description
of the CSSC
This 31.1
mile long man-made channel has many different shapes and sizes. Its
alignment is straight throughout its length, except for four bends near Harlem Avenue,
LaGrange and Romeoville Roads, and in Lockport (see figure 2-1). Downstream of the
Final Wetdry-April 2008
11

 
Geosyntec d
consultants
Lockport Powerhouse and Lock (LP&L), a reach of 1.1 miles, the depth is 10 feet and the
width is 200 feet. Upstream of the LP&L, the depth varies from 20 to 27 feet. The reach
immediately upstrearn of the LP&L, 2.4 miles in length, varies in width from 160 to 300
feet.
The east bank of this reach is a vertical concrete wall. The west bank varies from a
vertical rock wall to a steep rock hill embankment. The next 14.6 miles of the CSSC
have vertical concrete or rock walls 160 feet apart. The last 13.0 miles have a trapezoidal
shape, 220 feet wide, with steep earth or rock side slopes. There are several areas with
vertical rock walls in this last reach.
Physical Description
of the CSC and LCR
The Calumet WR1' discharges to the LCR. The LCR, 6.9 miles in length, has been
deepened and widened from its original natural condition. It has few vertical rock walls
and most of the banks are earthen side slopes. There are several changes in alignment,
with one full 180-degree bend west of Indiana Avenue. LCR's width varies from 250 to
750 feet and its depth is generally 12 feet in the center part of the channel. The width of
LCR at the point of the Calumet WRP outfall discharge was measured by the District to
be 750 feet, but it diminishes rapidly to 375 feet.
A man-made channel, the CSC is 16.2 miles long with a generally trapezoidal shape, 225
feet wide and approximately 10 feet deep. In some sections, the north bank is a vertical
wall.
The alignment is generally straight with three bends near Crawford, Ridgeland and
Western Avenues (see Figure 2-1).
Physical Description of the NSC
This man-made channel is 73 miles in length and is straight throughout. except for four
bends in alignment near Devon and Central Avenues and Emerson and Linden Streets
(see Figure 2-1). It has steep earthen side slopes and a width of 90 feet. The depth varies
from 5 to 10 feet.
2.3.1.1
Dry Weather Sampling Locations
A subset of the District's Ambient Water Quality Monitoring (AWQM) sampling stations
employed by the MWRDGC along the 78 miles of the CWS was used for this study.
Final
Wetdry-April 2008
12

 
Geosptec°
consultants
Three monitoring stations were chosen for each of the WRPs, one upstream of the outfall,
one downstrearn, and the WRP outfall itself. The sampling locations were surveyed by
MWRDGC sampling personnel using the GPS system available on the District's boat.
Upstream
Sampling
Locations
The upstream locations at each WRP were situated at the nearest AWQM sampling
station upstream of the WRP. These locations are as follows:
1. NSC-O
akton Avenue, also known as
WW-102 (
see Sampling Location 3 on
Figure 2-1
) -
8,200 feet or 1.6 miles from the WRP.
2. CSSC-Cicero
Avenue, also known as
WW-75 (
see Sampling Location 21 on
Figure 2-1
) -
6,300
feet or 1.2
Wailes from the WRP.
3. CSC-Indiana Avenue, also known as WW-56 (see Sampling Location 29 on
Figure 2-1) - 2,800 feet or 0.53 miles from the WRP.
Downstream
Sampling Locations
The downstream locations were selected to be the nearest established District monitoring
station that are no less than 10 to 15 waterway widths from the outfall. For the CSSC, the
waterway width downstream of the outfall is 220 feet, resulting in 15 waterway widths of
3,300 feet or 0.625 miles. For the CSC, the waterway width downstream of the outfall
ranges from 750 feet at the point of discharge to LCR to 375 ft. This results in 15
waterway widths ranging from. 11,250 feet (-2 z-niles) to 5,625 feet (-1 Haile). For the
NSC the waterway width downstreamn of the outfall is 90 feet, resulting in 15 waterway
widths of 1,350 feet or 0.225 miles.
The approximate downstream locations were as
follows:
1.
NSC-Touhy Avenue, also known as WW-36 (see Sampling Location 5 on
Figure 2-1),-- 2,800 feet or 0.53 miles from the WRP.
2.
CSSC-Harlem Avenue, also known as WW-41 (see Sampling; Location 22
on Figure 2-1) -- 9,500 feet or 1.8 miles from the WRP.
3.
CSC-Halsted Street, also known as WW-76 (see Sampling Location 32 on
Figure 2-1) - 5,800 feet or I 1 miles from the WRP.
Final
WetdryApol2008
13

 
GeosyntecO
consultants
2.3.1.2
Wet Weather Sampling Locations
A subset of the District's AWQM stations employed by the MWRDGC along the 78 miles
of the CWS was used for wet weather sampling. Nine wet weather sampling events
(three at each of the North Side, Stickney and Calumet WRPs) were conducted during the
recreational period between 6 June and 17 October 2006. During each sampling event,
samples
were collected by District personnel at several locations upstream and
downstream of the Stickney, Calumet and North Side WRPs (see Figure 2-2). Outfall
samples were also collected during each sampling event at the Calumet WRP.
One
sample was also collected at the outfalls of North Side and Stickney WRPs during the last
sampling event at each of these WRPs. The sampling locations were situated at the
nearest
MWRDGC AWQM sampling; station. At the North Side, samples were also
collected near each of the North Branch Pumping Station (NBPS) or Wilson Avenue
sampling station, depending on the level of turbulence near the NBPS. In addition, at
Stickney, samples were collected near the Racine Avenue Pumping Station (RAPS). The
exact sampling location proximal to the pumping stations was decided by the boat captain
based on the level of turbulence and other logistical and safety considerations.
A larger number of sampling locations was used during wet weather sampling. The wet
weather locations were spaced at significantly larger distances away from the WRPs to
account for the contributions of storm water runoff, CSO outfalls, and pumping stations.
In summary, wet weather samples were collected at the following locations:
U
p
stream of Stickne
WRP at
the CSSC
1.
CSSC-Damen Avenue, also known as WW-40 (see Sampling Location 20 on
F'igur'e 2.-2)--29,400 feet or 5.6 miles from the WRP
2.
CSSC-Cicero Avenue, also known as WW-75 (see Sampling Location 21 on
Figure 2-2)-8,200 feet or 1.6 miles from the WRP
3.
RAPS outfall (the sample was collected from Bubbly Creek at 35th Street)-32,800
feet or 6.2 miles from the WRP
Final
Wodry-April 2009
14

 
GeosyntecO
consultants
Downstream of Stickne
WRP at
the CSSC
1, CSSC-Harlem Avenue, also known as WW-41 (see Sampling Location 22 on
Figure 2-2)-9,500 feet or 1.8 miles from the WRP.
2.
CSSC-Route 83, also known as WW-42 (see Sampling Location 25 on Figure 2-
2)-61,500 feet. or 11. .7 miles from the WRP.
Upstream
of the Calumet
WRP at the LCR
1.
Little
Calumet-Indiana Avenue, also known as WW-56
(
see Sampling Location
29 on
Figure 2-2)-
6,300 feet or 1.2 miles from the WRP.
Downstream of the Calumet WRP at the
LCR and CSC
1. Little Calumet-Halsted Street, also known as WW-76 (see Sampling Location 30
on Figure 2-2)-5,800 feet or 1.1 miles froEn the WRP
2.
CSC-Ashland Avenue, also known as WW-58 (sec Sampling Location 32 on
Figure 2-2)-11,400 feet or 2.2 miles from the WRP
3.
CSC-Cicero Avenue, also known as WW-59 (see Sampling Location 33 on Figure
2-2)-33,800 feet or 6.4 miles from the WRP
4.
CSC-Route 83, also known as WW-43 (see Sampling Location 35 on Figure 2-2),
37,500 feet or 7.1 miles from the WRP
U
p
stream of the North Side WRP at the NSC
1.
NSC-Oakton Avenue, also known as WW-102 (see Sampling Location 3 on
Figure 2-2)-2,800 feet or 0.53 miles from the WRP
Downstream of the North Side WRP at the NSCC and Chicago River
I.
NSC-Touhy Avenue, also known as WW-36 (see Sampling Location 5 on Figure
2-2)-2,800 feet or 0,53 miles from the WRP
2.
NBPS or North Branch-Wilson Avenue, also known as WW-37 (see Sampling
Location 8 on Figure 2-2)-21,600 feet or 4.09 miles from the WRP
3.
North Branch-Diversey Parkway, also known as WW-73 (see Sampling Location
10 on Figure 2-2)-36,400 feet or 6.9 miles from the WRP.
4.
South Branch-Madison Street, also known as WW-39 (see Sampling I...ocation 17
on Figure 2-2)-52,600 feet or 9.96 miles from the WRP.
2.3.2
Sample Collection Equipment
,
Materials and Procedures
At each location during both dry and wet weather sampling, field parameters such as pH
and temperature were measured and recorded in the field sample collection forms, which
Final Wetdry-April 2008
15

 
Geosyntec
consCultanLs
are included in Appendix A-1 (dry weather sampling forms) and Appendix A-2 (wet
weather sampling forms). In addition, the following information was recorded on the
sample collection form (see Appendices A.-1 and A-2):
WRP name
* WRP address
a
Sampler name
«
Sample ID
Sample location ID
Sample location name
Sample collection date/tune
+ Sample volume
• Requested analysis
• Observations
The District used disinfected and sterilized sampling equipment at each sampling location
and for each sampling event.
The equipment was sterilized by scrubbing with warm
detergent solution and exposing to bleach (minimum of a 0.5% solution of bleach and
water) for at least 30 minutes at ambient temperature. The equipment was rinsed with
sterilized deionized water and placed in an area free of potential pathogen contamination
until dry. Deionized water was sterilized by autoclaving at 121 °C.
The details of dry and wet weather sampling are discussed in the following sections.
Dry Weather
Sample Collection
E
quipment
,
Materials and Procedures
At each sampling station a total of six samples were taken at three locations across the
width of the waterway. Sampling was conducted upstream of the boat (at the bow). At
each location a sample was taken at the surface and another at one-meter depth. The
samples fro€n the three locations at the surface were combined to make a composite
sample. Also, the samples from the three locations at one-meter depth were co€nbined to
make a composite sample. For virus and protozoa samples that require filtration, the
following procedure was followed: At each location upstream and downstream of the
WRP, the three samples at the surface were composited by filtering 1/3 of the required
volume at each location. Similarly, at each location upstream and downstream of the
J^ijml Wctdry-April 2008
16

 
Geosyntec°
con multanLs
WRP, the three samples at 1-meter depth were composited by filtering 113 of the required
volume at each location.
The exception to this protocol is the outfall samples. Four grab samples were taken over
a period of six hours at the WRP outfall. These four grab samples were combined to
make one composite sample. The composite sample was used as the source of samples
for bacteria by pouring the collected water into the appropriate sample containers. For
protozoa and virus samples, the composite sample was filtered using the procedures
described below.
During each sampling event, 15 samples were collected. Each sample was analyzed for
bacteria, viruses and protozoa. For the five sampling events a total of 75 samples were
collected.
Wet Weather Sample Collection
11'
quipment
,
Materials aind Procedures
The District and Geosyntec developed a strategy for determining which rain events were
appropriate for wet weather sampling,. Samples were collected during the wet weather
event or immediately after. The following criteria were evaluated to develop the strategy
(EPA, 1999):
1.
Minimum amount of precipitation
2. Duration of precipitation
3.
Antecedent Period (minimum 72 hours of dry weather)
The District monitored pending wet weather using the internet, public media and the
District's
Waterway Control Center (WCC). Each business day that wet weather was in
the forecast, at approximately 10:00 a,rn., the designated District personnel conferred by
conference call regarding; the potential for significant wet weather (SWW) over the
following 24-hour period.
SWW was defined as a forecast with 0.5 inch or greater
rainfall. In addition to discussing the forecast, the location, status and work schedule of
the two boats required for sampling; was reviewed.
District notified Geosyntec of the
potential for sampling following the daily conference calls when appropriate.
Final WeWry-Apa iE 2008
17

 
Geosyn.tec°
consultants
When there was the potential for SWW, the District contacted the WCC for wet weather
updates.
When rainfall of more than 0.1 inch had fallen at any WCC rain gauge within
the CSO service area and the 0.5 inch or greater expectation remained, the boat crew
supervisor was notified of the situation by the designated District person.
When 0.3
inches of rainfall had fallen at any WCC rain gauge
i
n the CSO service area, the
designated District person contacted the appropriate treatment plant operator to determine
if any CSO outfall tide gate alarms had occurred or if there had been pumping to the river
at either the 125`x' Street
Pumping
Station, NBPS or Racine Avenue RAPS.
After the decision was made to call out the boat crew, the District's laboratory sampling
manager contacted Gcosyntec to inform them that a sampling event had been initiated.
Grab wet weather samples were collected at the center of the channel because during the
2005 dry weather sampling good mixing conditions were visually observed across the
relatively narrow channel. Therefore, no significant differences were expected across the
channel during wet weather.
Wet weather samples were collected only at the surface of
the CWS. There was no statistical difference between samples collected at the surface
and at 1-meter depth as shown by the 2005 dry weather sampling results
(
see Section 3
for details).
In addition, effluent (outfall) samples were collected during wet weather sampling to
evaluate whether the increased flow through the WRPs during wet weather may affect the
pathogen concentrations in the effluent of the District's North Side, Stickney, and
Calumet WRPs. Four grab samples
were
taken over a period of six hours at each WRP
outfall
.
These four grab samples were combined to make one composite sample, The
composite sample was used as the source of samples for bacteria by pouring the collected
water into the appropriate sample containers.
For protozoa and virus samples, a
composite filtered sample was collected using the procedures described below.
Table 2-3 summarizes the dry and wet weather WRP flows (million gallons per day
[MGD]) during the 2005 and 2006 sampling events. The table also summarizes the
pumping station discharge volumes (million gallons [MG]) during the wet weather
sampling events
.
The data in Table 2
-
3 indicate that the effluent discharge flows are
Finar WcWry
-
April 2008
18

 
Geosyntec°
consultants
significantly higher during wet weather at each WRP. The data also indicate that the
CSO volumes are significantly higher at the RAPS (near the Stickney WRP) than the
NBPS (near the North Side WRP) and the 125`}' Street Pumping Station (near the Calumet
WRP). In addition
,
the data indicate that during the 2006 wet weather sampling, the
NIPS and the RAPS discharged CSOs during two of the three sampling events at each
WRP. At the Calumet WRP the 125`x' Street Pumping Station discharged during one of
the three sampling events, which is a very unusual occurrence. Based Oil the District's
experience
,
the 125"' Street Pumping Station discharges about once every ten years.
The following sections discuss (i) virus sampling in accordance to EPA (1996); (ii)
bacteria sampling according to EPA (1986; 2002; 2003; 2003x) and the Standard
Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater (1998); and protozoa sampling
according
to EPA (2001; 2003).
23.2.1
Virus Sampling
Sampling for viruses was conducted according to EPA (1996) using the virus adsorption-
elution
(VIRADEL)
method for recovering
human
enteric viruses from water matrices.
Positively charged cartridge filters (Virosorb0' IMDS cartridge, Cuno Inc. Meriden, CT)
were used to concentrate viruses from water.
Figure 2-3 presents a typical filter
apparatus (EPA, 1996).
Gloves were changed if they touched human skin or handled
components that may be contaminated (i.e. boat surfaces).
Procedures for sample
packaging and shipment are discussed in Section 2.3,5.
During the 2005 dry weather sampling, at each location upstream and downstream of the
WRP, the three samples at the surface were composited by filtering
'/
3 of the required
volume at each location.
Similarly, the 1-meter depth samples were composited by
filtering '
/
3 of the required volume at each location
.
Approximately 300-L of upstream
and downstream samples were filtered at each location during dry and wet weather
sampling. In addition, approximately 100-L samples were filtered at the outfall. The
outfall samples were composited over a six hour period by filtering €/ of the required
volume every 1.5 hours.
Final
WCUIry
-
April 2008
19

 
GeosyntecO
consultants
During the 2006 wet weather sampling at each location upstream and downstream of the
WRP, virus samples were collected by filtering the required volume near the center of the
channel.
Because of the relatively high turbidity of the surface water, pre-filter modules
were used routinely during wet weather sampling.
2.32.2
Bacteria Sampling
During dry weather sampling, at each location upstream and downstream of the WRP, the
three samples at the surface were composited by collecting i/3 of the required volume at
each location, Similarly, the samples at I-meter depth were composited by collecting ^/3
of the required volume at each location
.
The samples were collected using a sampling
pump and attaching a weight to the sampling tubing to lower it to the surface and I -meter
depth, respectively
.
The sample container was filled using an aseptic technique and
leaving at least I inch of head space to allow for mixing of the sample before analysis.
The container was closed immediately after the sample was collected.
During wet weather sampling, two sample containers were used for bacteria samples. A
10-L cubitainer was used for
Salmonella
spp. and one 10-L cubitainer was used for the
other bacteria analyzed. The sample container was filled using an aseptic technique and
leaving at least I inch of head space. The container was closed immediately after the
sample was collected.
Immediately following sample collection, the sample container lid was tightened
,
labeled
with water-proof ink and clear tape was placed over the sample label.
The sample
container was then placed in a ziplock bag, wrapped with bubble wrap or paper towels (to
prevent freezing
)
and placed upright in the cooler with ice. Fresh ice was placed in the
cooler immediately prior to shipment
.
Procedures for sample packaging and shipment
are discussed in Section 23.5.
2.3.2.3
Cryptosporidiurnr
and
Giar°dia
Sampling
Cryptvsporidiurn
and
Giardia
sampling was performed by EPA Method 1623 using field
filtration.
Method 1623 has been validated only for laboratory filtration.
However,
recent guidance in EPA (2003
),
entitled "Source Water Monitoring Guidance Manual for
Finial Wetdry-April 2008
20

 
Geosyntec
consultants
Public
Water ,Systems for the Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule.
EPA 815-D-03-005. June," indicates that field filtration is acceptable.
Field filtration
was performed using Pall Gelman EnvirochekTM HV capsule filters, which are acceptable
filtration systems.
During the first dry weather sampling event at the Calumet Waterway
System, 10-L samples were field filtered for protozoa analysis. During the remaining dry
and wet weather events, 20-L samples were field filtered for protozoa analysis.
During dry weather, four bulk water matrix spike (MS) samples were collected for
C1yi,,tosporidium
and
Giardia,
which were spiked in the laboratory and analyzed. The
matrix spike (MS) test in EPA method 1623 entails analysis of a separate sample aliquot
spiked with 100 to 500 oocysts to determine the effect of the matrix on the method's
oocyst recovery.
One MS sample was analyzed for every 20 samples (or 5% of the total
samples) as required by the method. The MS results were used collectively to assess
overall recovery and variability for EPA Method 1623, The MS sample results were not
used to adjust
Cryptosporidium
and
Giardia
recoveries at any sampling location.
During wet weather, two bulk water MS samples for
0vptosporidium
and
Giardia
were
collected, spiked in the laboratory and analyzed.
MS samples were collected neap` the
NBPS at Wilson Avenue and at RAPS. During dry weather sampling, four MS samples
were collected: one at each of the WRPs and one downstream of the Calumet WRP.
Before collection of the bulk MS sample, temperature and pH were measured. Turbidity
and specific conductance or conductivity (SC) of field samples were also measured at the
District's laboratory.
The MS samples were collected immediately after the field-filtered
samples by filling two 10-L cubitainers directly from the pump tubing.
The cubitainer cap was tightened, labeled
(
see Section 2.3.3) and
placed
in the shipping
cooler with ice. The ice was replaced with fresh ice before shipping. Sample packaging,
shipment
and tracking procedures are discussed in Section 2.3.5,
final weldcy-Apil 2008
21

 
Geosyntec
Consultants
2.3.3 Sample Identification
Samples were identified on the sample container with a separate identification label. All
labeling was done in indelible/waterproof ink. Each securely affixed label included the
following information:
• Sample 1D, which included:
o WRP identification (Stickney, North Side, Calumet)
o Sampling location (upstream, downstream, outfall)
o Sampling depth (surface or 1-meter)
o Date of sample collection
In addition, the sample label included the following:
• Time of sample collection
• Sampler's name or initials
Required analytical method
• Sample type (i.e., composite, grab)
Preservation requirement (i.e. ice)
2.3.4 Sample Custody
After collection and identification, samples were maintained under chain-of-custody
procedures.
Proper sample custody procedures were used to ensure that samples were
obtained from the locations stated and that they reached the laboratory without alteration.
A sample was considered to be in a person's custody if the sample was:
• in a person's actual possession;
• in view after being in a person's possession;
locked so that no one can tamper with it after having been in physical custody;
or
• in a secured area, restricted to authorized personnel.
r"inil Wadry-April 2008
22

 
Geosyntee°
consultants
The District sampling personnel were the field sample custodians and were responsible
for ensuring sample custody until the samples were transferred to a courier. or to the
laboratory.
All samples were accompanied by a Chain-of-Custody Record.
When
transferring samples, the individuals relinquishing and receiving the samples signed and
dated the record. Shipping bills were kept as receipt of shipment. Airbills were retained
as part of the permanent documentation. Before shipping the samples, one of the three
Chain-of-Custody carbon copies was kept as part of the permanent documentation,
When the samples were received by the laboratory, a designated laboratory person
checked all incoming samples for integrity and noted any observations on the original
Chain-of-Custody Record.
Each sample was logged into the laboratory system by
assigning it a unique laboratory sample nurnber.
This number and the field sample
identification number were recorded on the laboratory report.
The laboratory maintained a file of all the documents (e.g., Chain-of-Custody forms)
pertinent to sample custody and sample analysis protocols. For Chain-of-Custody forms,
the laboratory maintained a file copy, and the completed original was returned to the
project manager as a part of the final analytical report.
2.3.5
Sample Packaging, Shipment, and "Tracking
After labeling, all samples were stared in ice-filled coolers until shipment to the
laboratory.
At the end of each day the samples were packed for shipment.
2.3.5.1
Sample Packaging
Two large plastic trash bags were insetted into the shipping cooler to create a double
liner. Immediately before packing the cooler, fresh ice was put into several Ziploc bags.
The Ziploc bags were sealed by expelling as much air as possible and securing the top
with tape. The samples were placed into the shipping container with ice around the
sample bag.
A temperature sample was also placed in the cooler (e.g., extra sample
bottle) for measuring sample temperature upon receipt at the laboratory. The liner bags
were closed by twisting the top of each bag and tying it in a knot.
Final Wedry-April 2008
23

 
Geosyntec
consultants
The chain of custody form was completed, signed and dated, before being placed and
sealed inside a Ziploc bag, which was taped under the cooler lid. A copy of the sample
collection form was faxed to the laboratory the day after sample collection. The cooler
lid near the horizontal joints was sealed with duct tape.
The lid was also secured by
taping the cooler at each end, perpendicular to the seal. The coolers were also affixed
with security labels taped over opposite ends of the lid.
23.5.2
Shipping and Tracking
The protozoa
samples were shipped to
CEC on
the day of collection or on the morning of
the following day using United Parcel Service
.
The bacteria and virus samples were
hand-delivered to HML Due to the relatively short holding time of bacteria samples it
was decided to band-deliver the samples to ensure that they would be analyzed within the
holding time requirements.
The District Field Sampling Managers kept track of the CEC sample shipment by using
the airbill number on the shipper's copy of the airbill, using the shipping company's web
page, or by contacting the shipping company over the phone.
2.3.6 Waste
Management
Each laboratory was responsible for complying with all federal, state and local
regulations governing waste managernent, particularly the biohazard and hazardous waste
identification rules and land disposal restrictions, and to protect the air, water, and land
by minimizing and controlling the releases from fume hoods and bench operations.
Compliance with all sewage discharge permits and regulations was also required.
Samples, reference anaterials, and equipment known or suspected to have viable
pathogens attached or contained were sterilized prior to disposal.
2.3.7 Health and Safety
The sampling was performed in accordance with MWRDGC health and safety
procedures.
Final Wetdsy-April 2008
24

 
GeosynteG°
consultants
2.4 T Quality Assurance/ Quality Control Procedures
This section discusses the quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) procedures that
were used for the analysis of surface water and outfall samples. The QA/QC procedures
discussed are in accordance with the requirements of the analytical methods specified ill
Section 2.1.1,
2.4.1 Microbial Methods of Analyses
Sampling and analysis of microbial samples were conducted in accordance with the
procedures described at http
://
epa.gov/mici-obes and in Standard
Methods for the
Examination of Water and Wastewater (Standard Methods, 1998
).
The microbial
methods of
analysis include the
following:
Enteric viruses: i) (total culturable viruses) using the methods described in the
ICR Microbial Laboratory Manual, EPA 600/R-95/178 (EPA, 1996); ii)
adenovirus; and iii)
Calicivirus.
The samples for total culturable viruses were
analyzed by HML and the samples for adenovirus and
Calicivirus
were
analyzed by the UA Laboratory. Adenovirus and
Calicivirus
were determined
using; the
UA SOPS. There are no EPA-approved methods for viable
Calicivirus.
The method used involves a Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR)
method that offers an estimate of the virus concentration, but does not
determine or confirm viability.
Calicivirus
is a family of human and animal
viruses.
For this risk assessment study
Calicivirus
refers to humall
Caliciviruses,
specifically the genus norovirus,
• Infectious
Crypto.sporid.iuin parvi.fin
and viable
Giardia lamblia
were
determined using EPA Method 1623 (EPA, 2001) in conjunction with cell
culture infectivity for the
Cryptosporidium
and viability staining (DAPI-PI)
for the
Gicar ilia.
The samples for protozoa were analyzed by CEC.
• Salmonella
spp. using Standard Method 9260D (Standard Methods, 1998)
• Pseudornonas aeruginosa
using Standard Method 9213E (Standard Methods,
1998)
Fecal coliforms using Standard Method 9222D (Standard Methods, 1998)
E. soli
using EPA Method 1303.1 (EPA, 2002)
F_nierococci
using EPA Method 1106.2 (EPA, 2001a)
Final Wctdry-April 2008
25

 
Geosyntec°
consultants
2,4.2 Data Quality Objectives
Data quality objectives
(
DQO) are qualitative statements that specify the quality of the
data required to genet
-
ate valid data for the risk assessment calculations
.
DQOs are based
on the ultimate use of the data to be collected; therefore
,
different data uses may require
different levels of data quality (EPA, 1998; EPA, 2002x). Two analytical levels address
various data uses and the QA/QC effort and methods required for this project to achieve
the desired level of quality. These two levels are discussed below:
1)
DQO Level 2 (On-site Analyses): DQO Level 2 provides rapid results and a
better level of data quality than Level 1. This level is used for on-site analytical
measurement data using the District's YSI Datasonds Model 6600 and includes
pH and temperature.
2)
DQO Level 3 (Off-site Analyses using EPA-approved Methods, Standard
Methods (1998) or laboratory SON): DQO Level 3 provides data that will be
used in the risk assessment calculations
.
Off-site
;
analyses of viruses, bacteria,
and protozoa are subject
to Level 3 DQOs.
The following sections discuss the QA/QC procedures of the analyses to be performed
off-site.
The on-site analyses met Level 2 DQOs. On-site analyses were conducted in
accordance with the manufacturer
'
s operations and maintenance manual.
The overall QA objective was to implement procedures for sampling, chain-of-custody,
laboratory analysis, and reporting that would provide valid and complete data results.
The following sections discuss specific requirements for QA/QC procedures: laboratory
internal QC checks
;
equipment calibration
;
equipment maintenance
;
corrective actions;
data reduction
,
validation, and reporting
;
and archiving examination results.
2.4.3
QA
/
QC Procedures
Implementation of the QA/QC procedures was established through the following steps:
• The District Project Manager ensured that each field team member was
familiar with the SAP and QAPP prior to implementation of field activities.
Figal Wetdry
-April 2008
26

 
Geosyintec
consultants
The District Project Manager and Geosyntec QA Manager regularly provided
a QA review of field activities, field notebooks and forms to ensure that all
procedures were followed.
• Both the Geosyntec Project Manager and QA Manager identified laboratories
with national certifications that routinely analyze for the pathogens specified
in the sampling plan.
The Geosyntec Project
Manager and QA Manager verified that the
laboratories have a written description of their QA activities, a QA plan
describing the QA management of day-to-day routine operations. In addition,
The Geosyntec Team conducted telephone interviews and on-site visits to
audit the laboratories for this project.
The laboratories
were required to adhere to defined quality assurance
procedures to ensure that generated analytical data are scientifically valid and
are of known and acceptable precision and specificity.
The latest EPA-approved methods and Standard Methods were used to perform the
analyses for this project.
2.4.3.1
Laboratory Internal QC
The laboratories performed all QC procedures that were required by the analytical
methods. The dry and wet weather analytical reports of 1IMI.., CEC and UA are included
in
Appendices- B-1 and B-2; C-1 and C-2; and D-1 and D-2, respectively.
The
laboratories
were also required to comply with the requirements in EPA (1978) as
required
by the analytical
methods,
In addition, the
University of Arizona
Microbiological Laboratory was also required to comply with the requirements in EPA
(2004).
The laboratories were also required to implement the corrective actions required
if the QC criteria were not met.
Data that did not meet the internal QC criteria was
flagged and the laboratory documented the reason(s) for the nonconformance.
All
samples were analyzed within holding time requiremems.
Bacteria QC
The dry and wet weather bacteria analytical results are included in Appendices B- I and
B-2, respectively.
Bacteria sample results met the QC specifications set forth in the
Finat Wetdry-April 2008
27

 
GeosyntecO
comSUltant9
approved methods described above.
Each batch (or lot, if commercially prepared) of
dilution/rinse water was checked for sterility by adding 50 ML of water to 50 mL of a
double- trcngth non-selective broth (e.g., ttyptic soy, trypticase soy, or tryptose broth).
The water was incubated at 35°C ± 0.5°C and checked for growth after 24 hours and 48
hours
(
or for the longest incubation time specified in the method).
To test sterility of newly prepared media prior to the analysis of field samples, one plate
per each media batch was incubated at the appropriate temperature for 24 and 48 hours
(or for the longest incubation time specified in the method) and checked for growth. For
each new lot or batch of mediurn, the analytical procedures and integrity of the medium
was checked before use by testing with known positive and negative control cultures.
Preparation blanks were analyzed to detect potential contamination of dilution
/
rinse water
during the course of analyses
.
A membrane filtration
(
MF) preparation blank was
performed at the beginning and the end of each filtration series by filtering 20-30 n1L of
dilution water through the membrane filter and testing for growth
.
For the most probable
number (MPN) technique, a volume of sterilized, buffered water was analyzed exactly
like a field sample each clay samples were analyzed. `rhe preparation blank was
incubated with the sample batch and observed for growth of the target organists.
Cryptosporidiuin
and
Giardia
QC
The following QC samples were analyzed for
Crypl.osporidialn
and
Giardia:
MS,
ongoing precision and recovery (OPR), and method blanks; the results are presented in
Appendices C-1 and C-2.
The method blank
test in
EPA Method 1623 consists of
analysis of an unspiked reagent water sample to test for contamination. The OPK in EPA
Method 1623 entails analysis of a reagent water sample spiked with 100 to 500 oocysts to
demonstrate ongoing acceptable performance. The MS test in EPA Method 1623 entails
analysis of a separate sample aliquot spiked with 100 to 500 oocysts to determine the
effect of the matrix on oocyst recovery.
For dry weather samples, four MS samples were analyzed for the 75 samples collected
(or 5% of the total samples). One MS sample was collected at each of the three WRP
Final wetdiy
-Apri12008
28

 
Geosynkec©
Consultants
outfalls.
One MS sample was collected downstream of the Calumet WRP that was
sampled during the first sampling event.
For wet weather samples, two MS samples were analyzed for the 50 samples collected
(or about 5% of the total samples).
One MS sample was collected near the NBPS at
Wilson Avenue. A second MS sample was collected at RAPS. MS results were within
the acceptance criteria specified in EPA Method 1623, The MS sample results were not
used to adjust
Cryptosporidiunz
and
Giardica
recoveries at any sampling location.
During dry weather, cyst and oocyst recoveries for the surface water MS samples were
52%
and 61%, respectively. The
Giardia
cysts recovery for the outfall MS sample was
29.8% and the
Cryptosporidium
oocysts recovery was
27,7%.
During wet weather, the recovery rates of seeded
Giar-dia
and
Cryptospor-idiurrt
in the
Stickney RAPS MS sample (Stiekney - RAPS-MS-080306) were 46.5% and 89.1%,
respectively.
For the North Side MS sample (North Side --DNS-WW-37 --- 062606
MS), the
Giardia
and
Cryprosporidiurn
recovery rates for the matrix spike were 151 %
and 77.7%, respectively.
During dry weather, no oocysts or cysts were detected in method blanks analyzed
indicating no contamination in the spiking or sample processing procedures.
Mean cyst
recovery for OPR samples was 51.0 -+- 27°/(> (n=5) with recoveries ranging from 24.6 to
96AW The mean oocyst recovery for OPR samples was 61.1 ± 17% with recoveries
ranging from 40.4 to 84.3%.
All recoveries were well within the acceptance criteria
specified) for OPR samples in Method 1623 (EPA, 2003).
During wet weather
,
no oocysts or cysts were detected in method blanks analyzed
indicating no contamination in the spiking or sample processing procedures.
The cyst
recoveries for OPR samples ranged from 33.5 to 84.4
%
.
The oocyst recoveries for OPR
samples ranged from 33.2 to 89.1
%,
The lowest OPR recoveries for cysts
(
33.5%) and
oocysts (33.2%) were measured during the analysis of the 26 June 2006 North Side
samples.
A calculation error when preparing the oocyst working suspension resulted in a
tenfold reduction in the concentration of oocysts used in the spiking trials.
While the
Fina[ Wetdry
-
Apra 2009
29

 
Geosyntec°
consultants
OPR recoveries for the 26 June 2006 North Side analysis were relatively lower than the
ones typically obtained by CEC, they were still within acceptance criteria established by
EPA validation trials.
Overall, all recoveries were well within the acceptance criteria
specified for OPR samples in Method 1623 (EPA, 2003).
Virus
QC
`l''he
dry and wet weather analytical results for viruses are presented in Appendices B-I
and B
-
2, and D-1 and D
-
2, respectively
.
For the determination of total culturable viruses
the laboratories run a negative and positive assay control with every group of subsamples
inoculated into cell cultures. The laboratories performed a negative assay control (NAC)
by inoculating Blue Green Monkey Kidney (BGMK) cell culture with a volume of
sodium phosphate buffer (ply = 7 to 7.5) equal to the inoculation volume. This culture
served as a negative control. The laboratories performed a positive assay control (PAC)
by diluting attenuated poliovirus type 3
(from
the high titered QC stock
)
in sodium
phosphate buffer (pH = 7 to 7.5) to give a concentration of 20 Plaque Forming Units
(PFU) per inoculation volume. The laboratories inoculated a BGM culture with a volume
of diluted virus solution equal to the inoculation volume.
This control provided a
measure for continued sensitivity of the cell cultures to virus infection.
University of Arizona QAIQC Physical Measures
:
Two PCR
workstations
,
with non-
circulating air and ultraviolet
(UV) light were
used to ensure clean areas.
All the areas
for the analysis were physically separate.
All the reagents were prepared in a separate
room from
the samples
.
Both rooms had positive pressure from the main laboratory to
reduce contamination
.
Each room has a workstation
,
the reagents were only opened in
the workstation
,
and the samples were opened only in their respective workstations. The
workstations were cleaned with 10% bleach solution and
the UV light
was turned on for
at least 30 minutes prior to sample handling
.
Different equipment was used in each room
and not used in other areas
(
e.g. pipets, pipet tips and lab coats were exclusively used for
each room).
The PCR thernmcyclers are contained in another room outside the main
laboratory
.
The .PCR product was only open in the workstation designated for samples
Final Wetdry
-
April 2008
30

 
GeosyntecO
consultants
and in the electrophoresis room
(
negative pressure isolates this room from the plain
laboratory).
RNA free water was used as a negative control
.
The Reverse
T
ranscriptase
(
RT) and
PCR reagent was mixed in the workstation in the room for reagents. The lab coat, pipet
tips, pipet aid, coolers and tubes used were exclusively for this room. The samples for
RNA extraction were opened in a biological type 11 hood. The tube with RNA extracted
from the samples was opened only in the workstation located in the sample RNA
extraction
room. All
the equipment for RNA extraction and for handling the samples was
used exclusively for this function. The samples were centrifuged before opening in order
to reduce the potential for aerosol
formation.
One negative control for each 5 samples
was performed for the RNA extraction; also one negative control was run for the PCR.
2.43.2
Equipment Calibration
Each instrument was calibrated following the specific manufacturer's recommendations.
Laboratory instruments were calibrated prier to each use or on a scheduled
,
periodic basis
as specified in the analytical methods.
2.4.3.3
Equipment Maintenance
Equipment maintenance and repair was performed as required for each instrument.
Preventive maintenance for all equipment included inspection before use
,
cleaning as
necessary during use, and thorough cleaning and inspection after use.
2.4,3.4
Corrective
Actions
Corrective actions for the analytical laboratories included the following:
*
Reanalyses
of Calicivirus
and adenovirus samples to verify the results; the
relatively long holding times of the virus samples permitted the reanalysis.
Re-sampling and re-analysis of samples took place for the second dry
sampling event because UPS failed to deliver the original samples on time.
Evaluation and amendment of sampling procedures for protozoa samples after
the, first dry sampling event
.
to increase the sample volume to 20 L
,
instead of
10 L as
originally planned.
Final Wecdry-April 2008
11

 
GeosyntecO
COBSUltatltS
+
The first wet weather MS sample collected at RAPS on 10 June 2005 was not
used because only 10 L of sample was collected. The correct volume of MS
sample (20 L) was collected at RAPS during the 3 August 2007 sampling
event.
;lagging the results of certain bacteria samples as "estimated" because they
were based on a number of colonies outside the ideal or preferred range.
However, the uncertainty of the results in the risk assessment is acceptable
and the flagged results are usable.
Data
Reduction
, Validation,
and Reporting
Reduction of analytical results was clone by reviewing the calculations recorded on
analytical data sheets.
The laboratory QA manager verified that the appropriate
analytical methods were followed and the data were calculated properly. The laboratory
QA Managers validated the data by comparing the raw data to the reported results. In
addition, the results of calibration and internal QA/QC checks were compared with the
project acceptance criteria to assess the usefulness of the data.
The dry and wet weather analytical reports of HML, CEC and University of Arizona for
both dry and wet weather sampling are included in Appendices: B-1, B-2; C-1, C-2; and
D-1 and D-2, respectively.
The laboratory analytical reports contain the following
information:
+
raw data, including results of calibration and internal QC checks;
analytical data results;
units of measurement;
* client and sample identification;
sample analysis dates;
summary of any problems encountered;
QC data (MS, blanks, OPRs); and
QA reviewer's signature
2.5
;References
Center for Disease
Control (CDC),
Microbial Contaminant
Candidate List
(www.epa.gov/safewater/ccl/ccl2.btml#microbial)
Final
Wetdry-April 2M
32

 
Geosyntec°
consultants
EPA,
Undated,
Microbial
Contaminant
Candidate
List
(www.el)a.gov
/
safewatet
-/cel/ccl2.htj
nl#microbial)
EPA, 1978, Microbiological
Methods for Monitoring the Environment
;
Water and
Wastes. EPA-600/8-78-017. December.
EPA, 1986, Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria, EPA-440/5-84-002.
EPA, 1996, ICR Microbial Laboratory Manual, EPA/600/R-951178. April.
EPA, 1999, Combined Sewer Overflows, Guidance for Monitoring and Modeling, EPA
832-B-99-002, January.
EPA, 1998, Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans, EPA/600/R-98/018. l~ebruary.
EPA, 2001, Method 1623:
CryPtosl3oridium
and
Giardia
in
Water
Filtration
/1MS/FA,
EPA-821-R-01-025. April.
EPA, 2001a, Method 1106.1:
Enterococci
in
Water by Membrane Filtration Using
membrane-Enterococeu.s-Esculin Iron.
Agar (mE-EIA),
EPA 821-R-02-021.
September.
EPA, 2002, Method 1103.1:
Escherichia coli (E. coo)
in
Water Membrane Filtration
Using membrane-Thermotolerant
Escherichia soli
Agar (mTEC), EPA-821-R-2-
020. September.
EPA, 2002x, Guidance for the Data Quality Objectives Process (QA/G-4).
EPA, 2003, Source Water Monitoring Guidance Manual for Public Water Systems for the
Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule. EPA 815-D-03-005. June.
EPA, 2003a, Implementation Guidance for Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria,
EPA-823-B-03-xxx. November. Draft.
EPA, 2004, Quality
Assurance
/Quality Control
Guidance for
Laboratories Performing
PCR Analyses
on Environmental Samples.
October.
Geosyntec, 2005, Sampling and Analysis Plan and Quality Assurance Project Plan for the
Chicago Area Waterway System, July.
Geosyntec, 2006,
Wet Weather Sampling Plan and Analysis and Quality Assurance
Project Plan for the Chicago Area Waterway System, May.
Fini! Wetdry
-
Aprii 2008
33

 
Geosyntec
consultamts
Mead, P.S., Slutsker, L., Dietz, V. McCaig, L.F., Bresee, I.S., Shapiro, C., Griffin, P.M.,
and Tauze, R.V. (1999). Food Related Illness and Death in the U.S. Emerg.
Infect. Dis. (5)5, 607-625
Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 1998, 2& Edition.
Method 9222D. Fecal Coliform Membrane Filter Procedure; Method 9213E.
Membrane Filter Technique for
Pseudonionas Laerugi.nosCa;
Method 9260B.
Genet-at Quantitative Isolation and Identification Procedures for
Salmonella,
Method 9260D. Quantitative
Salmonella
Procedures.
Water Environment Research Foundation (WERE), 2004. Evaluation of Microbial Risk
Assessment Techniques and Applications.
World Health Organization (WHO), 1993, Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality,
Second Edition, Volume I Recommendations.
Final Weutry
-Aprii 2008
14

 
SECTION 2
TABLES

 
Table 2-1,
Major Waterborne Pathogenic Microorganisms Selected for the Microbial Risk Assessment
Gastroenteritis, meningitis, rash, febrile
illness
, respiratory infections
Note:
The information presented in the table was obtained from the following sources:
Center for Disease Control (CDC), Microbial Contaminant Candidate List
Mead, P.S.. Slutsker, L., Dietz, V., McCaig, L.F., Bmsee, I.S., Shapiro, C., Griffin, P.M., and Tauze, R.V. (1999)_ Food Related Illness and Death in
the U.S. Emern. Infect. Dis. (5)5.607-625_
World Health Organization (WHO): 1993. Guidelines for drinking Water Quality, Second Edition, Volume 1 recommendations

 
Table 2-2.
Summary of
Dry and Wet Weather
Samples
DRY WEATHER
Stickne
j
2
2
0
5
5
25
Calumet
2
2
0
5
5
25
North
Side
2
2
0
5
5
25
Total Number Of Dry Weather Samples
75
WET WEATHER
Stickne
2
2
1
3
1
16
Calumet
1
4
0
3
3
18
North
Side
1
3
I
3
1
16
Total Number Of Wet Weather Samples
50

 
Table 2-3. Summary of Dry and Wet Weather WRP Flows (MGD) and Pumping Station Discharge
Volumes (MG) Provided by MWRDGC
Urv ^?VRP
We#^Veat leer
Dry '
L'eather Salnpiing
Pump ng St,tt ©11 s
Wet WRP Flow
Flow
Sampling Date
Date
Di charge Zrblulne
{MtT)
OIGD).
North Side
7/28/2005
210
1
6/26/2006
33t
397
8/4/2005
226
1
8/3/2006
1152
386
8/18/2005
270
1
9/23/2006
No Pumping Station Discharge
388
8/25/2005
219
9/ 1 /2005
201
Stickney
8/ 1 /2005
544
1
6/
1
0/2006
2383
1261
8/3/2005
627
1
8/3/2006
6554
1160
8/17/2005
566
1
10/11/2006
No Pumping Station Discharge
939
8/24/2005
659
8/31/2005
447
Calumet
7/26/2005
221
1
8/24/2006
No Pumping Station Discharge
294
8/2/2005
157
1
8/29/2006
37$
473
8/16/2005
159
1 10/17/2006
No Pumping Station Discharge
461
8/23/2005
178
8/30/2005
164
Notes:
I . 'T'he pumping station discharged 33 MG in 2 hours and 45 minutes
2.
The pumping station discharged It 5 MG in 11 hour's and 15 minutes (between 2 and 3 August 2006)
3, The pumping station discharged 238 MG in 7 hours and 25 minutes
4. The pumping station discharged 655 MG in 14 hours and 55 minutes (between 2 and 3 August 2006)
5. The pumping station discharged 37 MG in 3 hours and 23 minutes
f=inal
Wetdry-April 2008
1

 
SECTION 2
FIGURES

 
FIGURE 2-1
CHICAGO WATERWAY SYSTEM
-
DRY WEATHER SAMPLING LOCATIONS
METROPOLITAN WATER RECLAMATION DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO
LEGEND
• MAJOR WRP INFLOW
(r
MINOR WRP INFLOW
CHICAGO WATERWAY
SYSTEM SECONDARY
CONTACT
- OTHER WATERWAYS
GENERAL USE
u... CHICAGO WATERWAY
SYSTEM GENERAL. USE
+ OTHER
WATERWAYS
SECONDARY
CONTACT
9.9 MILES UPSTREAM OF 12
LOCKPORT
f+ FLOW
r.CHI'.H 111 r,i
^/Y V,I l M
A.t^ /1 F.`Y a!
+,arlil!x^rll?
'K:M'(tISIF'!1
:n:A.areur
i^..JU.m,cHa.3uc
nexgnt
w+ylsn rte;:'
lGllE W w:.F.f
r11+
LfOkNO
OPMEAM AND DOWWWTA
[AM DAY WAPOR
1"PLWO
LOCAlm
^ AWRMf 7AYFlf
{6 yTATrOIt
Y. aC;1CA11 e»IG
'AGVf^• x`Y.'
:.`.Y l ^i hi F /.G1
;tN yJ ^ ny
wllnN 4^MA
L{l+
'.-h 61'05'lt••1
:- M':D av]12
^rlnltexu•.r
n.r.anl,^
....! ra;*ra

 
FIGURE 2-2
CHICAGO WATERWAY SYSTEM
-
WET WEATHER SAMPLING LOCATIONS
METROPOLITAN WATER RECLAMATION DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO
LEGEND
• MAJOR WRP INFLOW
n
MINOR WRP INFLOW
CHICAGO WATERWAY
SYSTEM SECONDARY
CONTACT
- OTHER WATERWAYS
GENERAL USE
«ww CHICAGO WATERWAY
SYSTEM GENERAL USE
--^ OTHER WATERWAYS
SECONDARY
CONTACT
9.9 MILES UPSTREAM OF +s;
LOCKPORT
-o-+ FLOW
(liFt
'}RIf1Ma
.Z
.LAlJEi
. AY.Mri
i^C-'IlRAL SIiF
.r
i'^CIU^AV,11-^
`w,L!'YN
3n"l
l^ASEN AasA+_i
YIpVRTtlI
•riH.F
,-
4 A'] h.^ Mi)'•
M^W^ w1511Jf
HA^
.
lr rt^ r•'.,
aMdllF wi
fWL Rlah, ^SSNA:
'c.rxv[.
ae[rrAwn
t
►avilxn•(enrE
h- G(^iryA xugA
E
.Fwtai EA SSgif
e,r^..i.t^
mnx
n-L:CfM Awa.!
^tlft:! ^.M' Ntl
,+^V4MMr1ln[R
Y^llal^lN
AT
[nH^l[N
Lra-v
SC.LLE W IIi:Fi
ASIXLAiI 5A1l ^l MO SSAIIary
• !1YANO
IIKIW W4T IYfA11{LR
!AYlLYfWK"G IVCAT
IOW
XW

 
-4r ris ^
Prefilter
Module
Figure 2-3. Typical
Filter Apparatus
Insedion
Point
for Additional Modules
r `
` - - - - - -
(ifrequiredj
RA-
! ,
FQ1
CN
MQ2
HF2
FQl
CH
MQ2
AL
SR -- Backflow Regulator
SF - Swivel Female
BT - Braided Tubing
HC
Hose Clamps
HFI - Hose Fitting
PR - pressure Regulator
PN --- PVC Nipple.
TF. -- PVC TEE
RB
Reducing Bushing
PG - Pressure Cause
RA -- Reducing Adaptor
MQI - Male Quick Connects
FQ I
Female Quick Connects
RNI - Reducing Nipples
CFI - Cartridge Ffousinh
FC - Filter Cartridge
MQ2 - Male Quick Connects
H E7 - Hose Fitting
WM--- Water Meier
H. F3 ----
Hose Fitting
FV - I'-low Control Valve
PC---Prefilter Cartridge
PG
BT

 
Ge©syntecO
consultants
3.
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Five (5) dry weather samples were collected at each designated location upstreamn,
downstream and at the outfall of each of the North Side, Stickney, and Calumet WRPs
between 28 July and 1 September 2005. Three (3) wet weather samples were collected at
each designated location upstream and downstream of each of the North Side, Stickney,
and Calumet WRPs between 10 June and 17 October 2006. In addition, three (3) wet
weather outfall samples were collected at the Calumet WRP and one (1) wet weather
sample was collected at each of the North Side and Stickney WRPs. Section 2 discusses
in detail the sampling locations at each WRP.
During dry weather, both surface and 1-meter depth samples were taken at the upstream
and downstream monitoring locations.
During wet weather, all samples were collected
near the surface of the waterway. The samples were analyzed for three major groups of
indicator and pathogenic microorganisms including bacteria, protozoa, and viruses. The
dry and wet weather laboratory reports summarizing the analytical results are included in
the following Appendices:
Appendices B-1 and B-2 include the 14ML reports documenting the results of
bacteria and total enteric viruses for dry and wet weather, respectively,
Appendices C- I and C-2 include the CEC reports documenting the results of
protozoa
(Cryptosjloridium
and
Giardia)
for
dry and wet weather,
respectively.
Appendices D-1 and D-2 include the UA reports documenting, the results of
Calicivirus
and adenovirus for dry and wet weather, respectively.
3.1
Bacteria Results
Bacteria samples were analyzed for the following microorganisms:
Enterococci
• Escherichia c.oli
• Fecal coliforms
• Pseudoinonas oert{ginosa
• Salrnolwlla
spp.
Final Wetdcy-April 2008
35

 
Geosyntec O
consultants
Bacteria were the most abundant microbial species detected in the waterway compared to
viruses and protozoa during both dry and wet weather events. A summary of the dry
weather analytical results is presented in Tables 3-la through 3-1c for the North Side,
Stickney, and Calumet WRPs, respectively.
A summary of the wet weather analytical
results is presented in Tables 3-ld through 3-1 f for the North Side, Stickney, and Calumet
WRPs, respectively. The results were analyzed and evaluated statistically using the
Minitab computing software and the procedures in Helsel and Hirsch (2002) and Helsel
(2005).
3.1.1
Analysis of Variance
(ANOVA)
During dry weather, at each upstream (UPS) and downstream (DNS) monitoring location,
two samples were collected, one at the surface and another at 1-m depth. At each effluent
location, only one composited sample per event was collected, The purpose of collecting
upstream and downstream sample data at two different depths was to determine if
pathogen concentrations varied significantly over the channel's vertical cross-section, as
would be the case if the WRPs' effluent plumes did not achieve complete downstream
mixing. An Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) analysis was conducted to evaluate this
question.
For dry weather, histograms were developed
for Enterococcus, E, coli
and fecal coliform
only, since these parameters had the greatest frequency of detection. 'T'hese histograms
are shown in Figures 3-1 through 3-3 for the North Side, Stickney, and Calumet WRPs
(note the log scale on the y-axis). Nine separate charts (three locations [UPS, DNS and
OUTFALL] and three bacteria parameters for each location [E. soli,
Etaerococcu.s
and
fecal coliform]) are provided for each WRP. Each histogram shows the concentration of
bacteria vs. the sampling date.
For each instrearn monitoring location, two sample
(surface and 1-m depth) results are shown for each sample date.
ANOVA tests were performed for the dry weather results to determine differences of
bacteria concentrations by site (i.e., North Side, Stickney, and Calumet), by location (i.e.,
UPS and DNS), and by depth (i.e., surface and 1-m depth). This analysis was only
conducted on
E. coli,
fecal coliform, and
Enterococcus
data as these groups had the most
Final Wetdry-April 2008
36

 
Geosyntecp
consultants
statistically significant (by percent detect) datasets.
E.
coli,
fecal
coliform, and
E,hterococcus
were detected at a frequency ranging from 99 to 100%, while
Pseudomonas aeruginosa
was detected in 75% of the samples and
Salmonella
spp. in
only 13% of the samples. Each factor (site, location, and depth) was tested to see if it
was a cause of statistically significant differences in bacteria concentrations, alone or in
combination with these factors. As such, a total of seven statistics were tested for the null
hypothesis that pathogen concentrations are not statistically different at a significance
level of 5%v. The results of the ANOVA analysis are shown on Figures 3-4 to 3-6 for dry
weather
E, coli,
fecal colifornt, and
Enterococcus,
respectively.
The dry weather results obtained are consistent for all bacteria groups in that there is a
significant difference between concentrations by site (North Side, Stickoey and Calumet),
and by location (UPS and DNS). This finding is consistent with a physical understanding
of the waterway system, that different sites have varying loading and dilution conditions
which results in varying concentrations, and that bacteria concentrations will generally
increase downstream of the WRP outfalls compared to the upstream locations.
All bacteria groups in dry weather samples also showed no statistically significant
difference in concentration by depth. That is, based on the dry weather results for each
microbial group, depth does not appear to be a significant factor, either alone or in
combination with the other factors (site and location). This finding is consistent with the
understanding that upstream and downstream monitoring locations are well mixed
vertically.
These conclusions are based on the high (i.e., >1) F (indicator of variability)
values and the low (i.e., <0.05) P (probability of statistical significance) values for the
site (WRP), location (UPS, DNS, OUTFALL), and site and location (in combination)
factors.
The charts of dry weather bacteria concentrations versus site, location, and depth (see
Figures 3-4 to 3-6) also graphically demonstrate the significance of the first two factors,
but not the last.
For instance, downstream concentrations at North Side are generally
greater than Stickney, which are greater than Calumet. Also, downstream concentrations
are consistently greater than upstream (consistent with our previous findings).
However,
Final weuiry-Apj
i1 2009
37

 
Geosyntec
consultants
surface concentrations
are
not
consistently greater or lower than 1-m depth
concentrations.
The results of the wet weather data ANOVA analysis are shown on Figures 3-7 to 3-11
for E.
soli,
fecal coliform,
Enterococcus,
P.
aeruginosa
and
Salmonella
spp.,
respectively. During wet weather sampling no samples were collected at 1-meter depth.
Wet weather
E. coli
and
Enter-ococcus
data are significantly different by site (i.e. North
Side, Stickney and Calumet waterway) only.
Fecal coliform, P.
aeruginosa
and
Salmonella
spp. do not differ by site or any other factor. Unlike the dry weather bacteria
data, the wet weather bacteria data do not differ by location (UPS vs. DNS),
The results of the dry and wet weather ANOVA analysis are shown on Figures 3-12 to 3-
15 for E.
toll,
fecal coliform,
Enterococcus
and,
A aeruginosa,
respectively.
Although
an ANOVA was not performed on the
P. aeruginosa
dry weather data due to the limited
number of detections, the additional data in the wet weather sampling allows us to pool
the data to evaluate the factors of interest (e.g. site, weather). For this analysis the non-
detects were replaced with fixed detection limit values which may affect the variance
estimates. Statistical estimates may be biased in cases where an ANOVA is conducted
with highly censored datasets.
Dry and wet weather combined bacteria data (E.
coli.,
Enterococcus, 1'. aeruginosa)
are significantly different by site (i.e. North Side, Stickney
and Calumet waterway) and weather (dry and wet). Fecal coliform differs by weather
only (not by site).
The Sahn.onella
spp. dry weather results had statistically insignificant
detections and therefore an ANOVA analysis of both the dry and wet weather results was
not performed. In summary, Figures 3-12 through 3-15 illustrate that unlike the dry
weather data, the combined dry an(] wet weather bacteria do not differ by location (UPS
vs. DNS).
Attachment A summarizes correlations between indicator bacteria levels and pathogens
under dry weather and wet weather conditions at the CWS. Recent studies indicate that
there is a pool- correlation between indicator bacteria levels and levels of human
pathogenic bacteria, viruses and protozoa (Noble
et al.,
2006; Noble and Fuhrman
et al.,
2001; Hardwood
el, al.,
2005; Jiang
et al.,
2001, and Fldi•man
el
al,,
2004). The
Final
Wetdry-April 2008
38

 
GeosynrecO
consultants
Geosyntec Team is not aware of any published results in the technical review literature
that indicate statistically significant correlations between indicator bacteria and protozoa
or virus pathogens.
3.1.2
Geometric Means
'c'able
3-2a summarizes the dry weather bacteria geometric mean concentrations at
different locations.
Figures
3-16, 3-17 and 3-
18 show the geometric mean results
graphically for North Side, Stickney and Calumet, respectively. The geometric mean
values for the censored datasets (i.e., dataset.s containing below detection results) were
computed using a maximum likelihood method.
Bacteria concentration data with
censoring greater than 80%n are considered statistically insignificant
,
and therefore no
geometric mean values were computed (see results for
Salmonella
spp.) (Helsel, 2005).
These tabulated results confirm that the dry weather microbial concentrations tend to
increase immediately downstream of the WRPs. The results in Table 3-2a also indicate
that the fecal coliform concentrations upstream of the North Side and Stickney WRPs
were greater
than the IEPA proposed effluent limit of 400 CYFU/100 mL.
Table 3-2b summarizes the wet weather bacteria geometric mean concentrations at
different locations.
Figure 3-19 is a graphical presentation of the wet weather geometric
means at cacti sampling location (UPS,
DNS, OU`I"FALL)
at the North Side
,
Stickney
and Calumet WRPs. The wet weather results indicate that most of the North Side and
Stickney geometric mean bacteria concentrations upstream and downstream of the WRPs
are higher than the outfall concentrations.
Also, the wet weather concentrations at
Stickney and
North Side are greater than Calumet.
Fecal coliform and E.
coli
wet
weather concentrations are greater than the other bacteria geometric t-fleans at each
sampling location at all
WRPs. The results in Table 3-2b also indicate that the wet
weather fecal coliform concentrations upstream of the North Side, Stickney and Calumet
WRI's were above the IEPA proposed effluent limit
of 400 CFU/
100 mL.
Figure 3-20 presents a comparison between dry and wet weather geometric mean
concentrations
(
including
OUTFALL, UPS
and DNS locations
)
at each WRP. Tile figure
indicates that the wet weather concentrations are significantly greater than the dry
Final Wetdry-April 2008
39

 
GeosynteO'
consultants
weather concentrations at each
WRP waterway. The most significant differences are
observed at the North Side and Stickney waterways. In addition, the following
observations can be made regarding the geometric mean results in Figure 3-20:
• The geometric mean concentrations of
Salmonella
spp. were low in both dry
and wet weather conditions. The
Salmonella
spp. concentrations in the UPS
and DNS samples were similar- during wet weather conditions at the North
Side, Stickney, and Calumet segments of the waterway.
• The
en.terococci
concentration was lower than E,
coli
and fecal coliform
concentrations under wet weather conditions.
• P. aeruginosa
wet weather concentrations were slightly higher than the dry
weather levels.
However, the effluent samples show lower levels of P.
aeruginosa
than the corresponding upstream and downstream wet weather
samples.
3,1.3 Percentile Box Plots
Semi.-log box plots were created to graphically demonstrate the central tendencies and
variability of the various bacteria datasets.
Each box indicates the 25"' 50`' and 75'1'
percentile values.
The spatial (UPS, DNS, Outfall) percentile box. plots for the dry
weather results are shown in Figures 3-21 through 3-23. No box plots were prepared for
dry weather
Salmonella
results as most of these datasets were statistically insignificant
(i.e.,
non-de(ect frequency X80%).
For dry weather results, the box plots again show
concentrations increasing downstrearn, except for
P,
aeruginosa
at
Stickney and
Calumet, and
Enterococcus
at Calumet..
P.
aeruginosa
percentile results are highly
influenced by non-detect results, therefore downstream increases can not be seen in these
box plots; geometric mean values (generated using the maximum likelihood method) are
better indicators of this trend for significantly censored datasets.
For dry weather results, the box plots demonstrate a modest spread of the concentration
data around the median (around I log between the I" and 3" quartiles), as well as the
occasionally significant skewedness (in log space) of these results (as indicated by the
relative box and whisker heights above and below the median values).
Moreover, all the
box plots consistently show that downstream concentrations exhibit less variability than
upstream concentrations.
Final
Wetdry-April 2008
40

 
Geosyntee
consultants
An examination of the spatial variability of the wet weather data did not reveal any
discernable trends. Therefore, the box plots were used to evaluate any temporal trends
that may be attributable to the different weather conditions and the occurrence or non-
occurrence of discharges from the pumping stations. The percentile temporal box plots
for the wet weather results are shown in Figures 3-24 through 3-26.
These figures
illustrate the central tendencies and variabilities at the various bacteria data sets as a
function of tune. Each box indicates the 25tH 50th and 75th percentile values of the
logarithmic bacteria concentrations at. each
WRP (including UPS, DNS, and Outfall
concentrations).
The plots indicate that the occurrence of pumping station discharges resulted in elevated
concentratiots of bacteria in the Stickney and Calumet waterway, except for
Salmonella.
The occurrence of pumping station discharges took place on 10 June 2006 and 3 August
2006 at RAPS, near the Stickney WRP and on 29 August 2006 at the 125'' Street
Pumping Station near the Calumet WRP. The N13PS discharged on 26 June 2006 and 3
August 2006, but not on 23 September 2006. The large variability of the North Side
bacteria results is probably masking the effect of the pumping station discharge.
3.2
Protozoa Analytical Results
Dry and wet weather samples were analyzed for the presence of
Cryptospvridium
oocysts
and
Giardia
cysts using EPA Method 1623 or a modified version for wastewater samples.
In addition, a portion of each sample was analyzed for the presence of infectious oocysts
and viable cysts using cell culture techniques and vital dyes, respectively. The following
sections discuss enumeration and viability results for
Cryptosporidium
and
Giardia.
3.2.1 En
umeration Results
Dry weather enumeration results from samples collected at the North Side facility are
presented in Table 3-3a.
Giardia
cysts (cysts) were detected in all outfall samples with
concentrations ranging from
.
0,6 to 4.6
/
L, Cysts were detected in all downstream samples
with the exception of those collected
8/18/05. Cyst
concentrations in the downstream
samples ranged from 0.3 to
3IL.
Cysts were detected in four (4) of 10 upstream samples
Final Wetdry-April 2008
41

 
GeosyntecO
consultants
at concentrations ranging from 0.2 to 3.6/L.
Cr yptosporidilon
oocysts (oocysts) were
detected in three
(
3) of five
(
5) outfall samples
,
one (1) of 10 upstream samples and six
(6) of 10 downstream samples. Oocyst concentrations ranged froze 0.1 to I.O/L in
downstream samples where they were detected.
Dry weather enumeration results for samples collected at the Stickney plant are presented
in Table 3-3b. Cysts were detected in all outfall samples analyzed from the Stickney
plant with concentrations ranging
from 0.4 to 4.9/L. Cysts were
not detected in the
upstream samples collected on 8/1105.
Cysts were detected in the upstream samples
collected in the last four sampling events at concentrations ranging from 0.1 to 0.311-
when detected. Cyst concentrations in the downstream samples ranged from 0.2 to 1.1/L
when detected. Cysts were not detected in two (2) of 10 downstream samples analyzed.
Cysts were detected in all samples
(
upstream
,
downstream and outfall
)
collected at the
Stickney plant on 8/24105.
Cryptosporidiu ni.
oocysts were detected in three (3) of five (5)
outfall samples analyzed at concentrations ranging from 0.1 to 0.6
/
L.
Oocysts were
detected in only one upstream sample (of 10 analyzed
)
at 0.3 oocysts
/
L, and in three (3)
of 10 downstream samples analyzed at concentrations ranging from 0.2 to 0.5 oocysts/L.
Dry weather enumeration results for samples collected at the Calumet waterway and
outfall are presented in Table 3-3c.
Giardia
cysts were detected in four (4) of five (5)
outfall samples collected at the Calumet
WRP.
Where cysts were detected, the
concentrations ranged from 0.6 to 2.2/L in the outfall samples. Cysts were not detected
in any of the upstream sarnples. In downstream samples cyst concentrations ranged from
0.3 to 0.6 cysts/L, when detected.
Cryptosporidium
oocysts were detected in one (1) of
five (5) outfall samples at a concentration of 0.4 oocysts/L. Oocysts were not detected in
any of the samples collected in the first three sampling rounds. No oocysts were detected
in the upstream samples collected on 8/23
/
05, but were present in the downstream
samples collected that day at a concentration of 0.2 oocysts/L
.
For samples collected on
8/30/05, oocysts were detected in the upstream surface and in both (surface and 1-meter
depth) downstream samples. Oocyst concentrations in these samples ranged from 0.3 to
0.5 oocysts
/
I.,. No oocysts or cysts were detected in the samples received that exhibited
signs of freezing
(
collected on 8/2/05).
Final
Wctdry
-
April 2008
42

 
GeosyntecO
Consultants
Wet weather enumeration results from samples collected at the North Side designated
locations are presented in Table 3-3d.
The results indicate that the concentrations of
Cryptosporidium
oocysts ranged from <0.2 to 1.6 oocysts/L. The MS sample at this
location contained
Cryptosporidium.
oocysts ranging from 0.8 to 3 oocysts/L.
The
concentrations
of Giardia
cysts ranged from <0.3 to 49.5 cysts/L. The MS sample at this
location contained
Giardicr
cysts ranging from 53 to 48.9 cysts /L. Sections 2.3.2.3 and
2.4.3.1 provide details on the analysis of the MS samples.
Wet weather enumeration results from samples collected at the Sticlcney designated
locations are presented in Table 3-3e.
The results indicate that the concentrations of
Cryptosporidiun?
oocysts ranged from <0.2 to 0.8 oocysts/L. The ms sample at this
location contained
Cryptosporidiuin
oocysts ranging from 3 to
25
oocysts/T...
The
concentrations of
Giardia
cysts ranged from <0.2 to 5.4 cysts/L. The MS sample at this
location contained
Giardia
cysts ranging from
7
to 53 cysts/L. Sections 2.3.2.3 and
2.4.3.1 provide details on the analysis of the MS samples.
Wet weather enumeration results from samples collected at the Calumet designated
locations are presented in Table 3-3f.
The results indicate that the concentrations of
Cryptosporidium
oocysts ranged from <0.2 to 6.3 oocysts/L. No MS sample was
collected at the Calumet waterway. The concentrations of
Giardia
cysts ranged from
<0.2 to 8.5 cysts/L.
Overall, the concentrations
of Cryptosporidium
oocysts and
Giardicr
cysts were greater
during wet weather compared to dry weather sampling. Also, the frequency of detection
was greater.
3.2.2 Detection of Infectious
QqMosporrli«»r
Oocysts Using Cell Culture
This section describes the procedure that was used to determine infectious
Cryptosporidiuuz
oocysts in the samples collected in this study. Control
Cryptosporidiurn
pan,um (C. parvuw)
oocysts obtained from Waterborne, Inc. were inoculated to confluent
monolayers of human ileocaecal adenocarcinorna (HCI'--8) cells at concentrations ranging
from 0 to approximately 104 oocysts. The oocyst age at the time of inoculation ranged
Final wctdry-Apt-il 2004
43

 
Geosyntec p
consultants
from 3 to 40 days old (post shedding) and demonstrated infection rates starting at 3.2%
and dropping to 0.6% as the oocysts aged in the positive controls analyzed. It has been
reported that freshly purified oocysts inoculated to monolayers of HCT8 cells routinely
demonstrate infection rates of less than 10% when fresh (< 1 week) and decline rapidly
within 1 month of age (Rochelle et al., 2001).
Method blanks and heat-inactivated
controls yielded no infections.
One to two infectious foci were detected in three (3) of
four (4) seeded OPR samples and two (2) of four (4) seeded MS samples. The theoretical
number of
Cryptosporidium
oocysts applied to monolayei,s for these samples ranged from
160 to 172 oocysts, and based on infection rates obtained in these trials one would expect
to find 0 to 5 infectious foci.
For dry weather samples, no infectious oocysts were
detected in the portions of each unseeded sample analyzed.
Similarly, for wet weather samples, no infectious
Cryptosporidir. m
oocysts were detected
in the field samples analyzed with one exception: Calumet-DNS-WW-58-082406 had 1
infectious foci.
Also, a total of 3 infectious foci were detected in the 26 June 2006 MS
sample from the North Side (North Side-DNS-WW-37-062606-MS).
Five (5)
subsamples of the MS sample were analyzed, Only two (2) of the five (5) subsamples
contained infectious oocysts; one subsample contained two (2) and the other contained
one (1) infectious oocyst.
However, none of the samples collected at the North Side
waterway on the same date contained infectious oocysts,
Overall, the combined wet and dry weather percentage of infectious foci is estimated to
be approximately 2.4% (3 of 125 samples [75 dry weather and 50 wet weather samples]
contained foci).
3.2.3
GiatcliaViability
Results
The inclusion, or exclusion, of the fluorogenic dyes in these protozoa may indicate the
integrity of the cell wall and therefore, its viability. Inclusion of propidium iodide (PI) in
Giardia mUris
cysts was reported by Schupp and Erlandsen (1987) to indicate non-viable
cysts. To demonstrate the cysts were not viable, 14 to 21 day old mice were infected with
PI positive cysts at levels of 5 x 101 cysts per inouse and 5 x X04 cysts per mouse. After
1 I clays no infections were noted in the animals. Conversely, cysts that were fluorescein
Final
Wetdry-April 2008
44

 
Geosynte&
consultants
diacetate
(
FDA) positive were capable of causing Giardiasis in 100% of the mice
infected at seeding levels of 1 x 103 cysts per mouse. Smith and Smith (1989) reported
that the FDA consistently overestimated cyst viability
i
n human isolates of
Giardia
intestin alms
while PI under-estimated non-viable cysts when compared to
in
vitro
exeystation
.
One of the human isolates could not be stained with either FDA
or PI. The
authors did conclude that PI could be used to determine the lower limit Of non
-
viability in
environmental samples where low numbers of cysts are expected,
Thiriat
et al.
(1998) reported using 4',6'-diamidino-2-phenylindole (DAPI)/Pl to assess
viability of cysts recovered to
Giardia
positive stool samples from humans and sewage.
When the authors compared FDA/PI, DAPI/PI and eosin exclusion, the FDA/PI and eosin
exclusion procedures seemed to over
-
estimate cyst viability. These findings are similar to
those reported by Smith and Smith
(
1989) and Kasprzak and Majewska
(
1983),
respectively. CEC used the DAPI/PI method for determining cyst viability for these
environmental samples.
Giardia
cysts were detected using FITC-mAb and were then examined for DAPI
characteristics and were scored as DAPI positive or negative (see the CEC reports in
Appendices C-I and C-2). DAN positive
Giardia
cysts may contain 0 to 4 sky blue
nuclei or diffuse staining of the nuclei or cytoplasmic staining, while cysts exhibiting no
internal staining are scored as DAPI negative
,
Cysts were then examined for inclusion of
PI and were scored as PI positive or PI negative. Internal morphology of each cyst was
examined using Normarski optics. Cysts exhibiting good morphology had a smooth
appearance and were refractive and the cytoplasm had not pulled away from the cell wall.
Internal features such as axonemes, median bodies, ventral disks or nuclei may be
discernable in these organisms. Cysts exhibiting poor morphology were slightly to very
grainy in appearance or the contents of the cell were shrunken and pulled away from the
cell wall. Internal structures were sometime evident in these organisms
.
Cysts scored as
empty exhibited excellent fluorescence with FITC-mAb, were DAPI negative, and had no
internal cell contents. However, the thickness of the cell wall was examined to make a
determination of identification. Most algal cells have much thicker cell walls and are
easily ruled out as being
Giardia
cysts.
Final Wetdry
-
April 2008
45

 
Geosyntec°
consultants
Also, PI staining is not a consistent measure of cyst viability. Sauch
et al.
(1991), state
that the PI procedure is not satisfactory for determining viability of
Giardia in.uris
cysts.
In addition, it must be noted that it is common to observe empty cysts that do not take up
the Pl stain. The method for determination of viability of
Giardia
cysts has not been
validated, therefore the results must be considered as a further characterization
of Giardia
by this staining method.
For dry weather, most
Giardia
cysts found in the samples at all sites were PI positive
indicating non-viability.
Outfall samples at the North Side (see Table 3-4a) and Stickney
(see Table 3-4b) WRPs contained a higher level of viable cysts compared to Calumet (see
Table 3-4c).
Viable cysts were also found in downstream samples at the North Side (see
Table 3-4a) and Stickney (see Table 3-4b) waterways. While levels of potentially viable
Giardia.
cysts may pose a public health risk, it is important to note that not all viable
organisms are capable of causing infection.
The average dry weather percentage of viable
Giardia
cysts found in each waterway
segment, including outfall and in-stream concentrations, is provided below:
• Calumet:
Giardia
viability=10%a
• Stickney:
Giardia
viability=21
%
+ North Side:
Giardia
viability=26%
The average dry weather percentage of viable
Giardia
cysts found in the outfall only of
cacti WRP is provided below:
a
Calumet Outfal1:
Giardia
viability= 10%
• Stickney Outfall:
Giardia
viability=47%
North Side Outfall
:
Giardia
viability=51%
Wet weather samples contained viable
Giardia
cysts at each waterway (see Tables 3-4d
through 3-4f).
Viable cysts were also found in upstream samples at North Side (see
Table 3-4d) and Stickney (see Table 3-4e) WRPs.
Final Wetdry-April 2008
46

 
Geosyntecc>
Consultants
The average wet weather percentage of viable
Giardia
cysts found in each waterway
segment, including outfall and in-stream concentrations, are provided below:
• Calumet:
Giardia
viability=10%
• Stickney:
Giardia
viability=47%n
• forth Side:
Giardia
viability=49%
The average
wet weather percentage
of viable
Guardia
cysts
found in the outfall only of
each WRP is provided below:
• Calumet Outfall:
Giardia
viability=10%
• Stickney Outfall:
Giardia.
viability=50%n
North Side Outfall:
Giardia
viability=42%o
These results indicate that the Calumet waterway under both (lry and wet weather
contained the smallest percentage (10%n) of viable
Giardia
cysts compared to Stickney
and North Side.
3.3
Virus Analytical Results
Enteric virus samples were analyzed for
:
i) total culturable viruses using the method
described in the lCR Microbial Laboratory Manual, EPA 600
/
R-951178; and ii)
adenovirus and
Calicivirus
.
Adenovirus and
Calicivirus were
determined using UA
SOPs. There are no published assays for viable
Calicivirus.
The method involves a PCR
assay that estimates the virus concentration
,
but does not determine or confirm viability.
The infectivity of the virus cannot be determined by the PCR method. Therefore, the
number of genomes in a volume of water was determined using the most probable
number (MPN) method.
The virus concentration was estimated by recording the
presence of the viral genomes
,
but does not determine or confirm viability.
Calicivirus
is
a family of human and animal viruses. For this risk assessment it was assumed that
Calicivirus
refers to human
Caliciviruses,
specifically the genus norovirus.
Final weldry
-
April 2008
47

 
Geosyntec O
consultants,
Adenovirus and norovirus samples were sent as concentrates to the Environmental
Virology Laboratory, Department of Soil, Water and Environmental Science at the DA
from HML and received by Pat Gundy, laboratory director of cell culture.
Assay on the PCL/PRF/5 cell line was done because adenoviruses will grow in this cell
line.
Adenoviruses are believed to be more common in sewage than enteroviruses, and
have been a cause of recreational waterborne
illness.
Adenoviruses do not produce
cytopathogenic effects (CPE) in the BGM cell line, thus the need to use another cell title
to assess
their occurrence. Since enteroviruses and other enteric viruses can grow in
PCL/PRFI5 cells, PCR was used to confirm the presence of adenoviruses in the cell
culture in which CPE was observed.
Norovirus detection was done by RT-PCR (reverse transcriptase polymerise chain
reaction) since it is an RNA virus. Adenovirus is a DNA virus so only PCR is needed for
its detection. While PCR cannot be used to determine the infectivity of the virus, the
number of genomes in a volume of water can be estimated by using the most probable
number (MPN) method.
Generally, the ratio of genomes (virions) to cell culture
infectivity units is 1:100 to 1:45,000 (Ward
et al.
1984; Gerba personal observations).
3.3.1 Enteric Viruses
HML analyzed the culturable enteric virus samples using the EPA (1995) method in
EPA/500/4-84/013(014) (see Section 2.4). The laboratory analytical report is included in
Appendix B.
Tables 3-5a through 3w5c present a summary of the dry weather total
enteric virus analytical results for the North Side, Stickney and Calumet WRPs. Tables
3-5d through 3-5f present a summary of the wet weather total enteric virus analytical
results for the North Side, Stickney and Calumet WRPs, respectively. Tables 3-9 and 3-
10 summarize the percentage of dry and wet weather samples, respectively with virus
detections and the range of concentrations detected.
The dry weather results indicate that a relatively small number of samples (17 of 75
samples
or 23%)
had detectable concentrations of enteric viruses (see Table 3-9). Eight
(8) of 25 dry weather samples (29%) upstream, downstream and at the outfall of the
Final Wcuh_wApril 2008
48

 
Geosyntec"
consultants
North Side WRP had detectable enteric virus concentrations
.
The detectable
concentrations upstream ranged from 1.04 to 3.25 MPN/l00L,
The detectable
concentrations downstrea
m
ranged froze 2.12 to 16.07 MPN/10
0
L.
The outfall
concentrations ranged fronn 1.72 MPN
/
100L to 24.73 MPN/100L.
Six (6) of 25 dry weather samples (24%) upstream and downstream of the Stickney WRP
had detectable virus concentrations (see Table 3-9). The detectable concentrations
upstream ranged from 1.03 to 3.25 MPN/1001.,.
The detectable concentrations
downstream ranged from 1.02 to 1.03 MPN/100L
.
There were no detectable viruses at
the outfall.
Only three (3) of 25 dry weather samples (12%), one at each upstream, downstream and
outfall location of the Calumet WRP had detectable concentrations of viruses (see Table
3-9). The upstream concentration was 1.04 MPN/100L; the downstream concentration
was 1.04 MPN/1001.,; the outfall concentration was 1.28 MPN/100L.
During the North Side wet weather sampling, 11 of 16 samples (69%) had detectable
enteric virus concentrations (see Table 3-10). The detectable concentrations upstream
ranged from 1 to 12 MPN
/
100L. The detectable downstream concentrations ranged from
1 to 28 MPN/100L. Only one
(
1) wet weather outfall concentration was collected at the
North Side WRP that had an enteric virus concentration 1MPN/100L
.
Due to safety
concerns, the discharge of the NBPS was sampled at the nearest downstream location:
North Side-DNS-WW-37 and had only one detection of 1 MPN/1001...
During; the Stickney wet weather sampling, 14 of 16 samples (88%) had detectable
enteric virus concentrations
(
see "Fable 3-10
). The detectable
concentrations
upstream
ranged from 2 to 28 MPN/1001.,, The detectable downstream concentrations ranged from
1 to 9 MPN
/
100L. Only one
(
1) wet weather outfall sample was collected at the Stickney
WRP that had an enteric virus concentration of 10 MPN/100L. All three (3) RAPS
samples had detectable concentrations of total enteric viruses ranging between 1 and 63
MPN/100L. The highest concentration of 63 MPN/100L was detected during the 3
August 2006 sampling event when RAPS discharged 655 MG in 14 hours and
55
minutes
of operation.
Final
Wetdry
-
April 2008
49

 
Geosyntec °
consultants
During the Calumet wet weather sampling, 14 of 18 samples (77%) had detectable enteric
virus concentrations (see Table 3-10).
The detectable concentrations upstream ranged
from 1. to 9 MPN/100L. The detectable; downstream concentrations ranged from 1 to 85
MPN/100L.
Two (2) of the three (3) wet weather outfall samples collected at the
Calumet
WRP had detectable enteric virus concentrations ranging from 10 to 32
MPN/ 100L.
Table 3-11 presents a comparison between dry and wet weather percentage of virus
sample detections
.
T
he results indicate that the percentage of enteric virus detections
during wet
.
weather were greater than the dry weather detections
.
The percentage of
enteric virus detections at the North Side waterway segment increased frorn 29% during
dry weather
to
69%
during wet weather
.
The percentage of virus detections at the
Stickney waterway segment increased
from 24
% during dry weather to 88%n during wet
weather.
The percentage of enteric virus detections at the Calumet waterway segment
increased from 12%n during dry weather
to 77%
during wet weather. In addition, the
concentrations detected during wet weather sampling are generally greater than the dry
weather concentrations.
3.3.2
Adenovirus
'T'able 3-6 presents a summary of the culturable virus and adenovirus dry weather
analytical results. 'fable 3
-
8 summarizes the wet weather culturable virus and adenovirus
analytical results.
Of 75 dry weather samples, 42 or
56%
demonstrated the presence of detectable virus by
assay in the PCL/PRF-/5 cell line. Of 42 samples that were cell culture positive,
adenoviruses were detected in 31 or about 74% of the samples by PCR. Enteroviruses or
other enteric viruses were probably responsible for the observed CPE in the other
samples or the CPE of other viruses could have masked the presence of adenoviruses i.e.
the other enteric viruses were in higher concentrations.
During the North Side dry weather sampling, 12 of 25 samples
(
48%) had detectable
adenovirus virus concentrations
(
see Tables 3-6 and 3-9
).
The detectable concentrations
Final Wetdry-April 2009
50

 
Geosyntec °
consultants
upstream ranged from
1.5 to 2.94 MPN/100L. The
detectable downstream concentrations
ranged from 5.03 to 27.6 MPN/100L, T he outfall
concentrations ranged from
45.1 to 256
MPN/100L.
During the Stickney dry weather sampling, 13 of 25 samples (52%) had detectable
adenovirus concentrations
(
see Tables 3-6 and 3-9
).
The detectable concentrations
upstreamn ranged from 1 i to 117 MPN/100L
.
The detectable downstream concentrations
ranged from 1.39 to 112 MPNIl
.
001- The detectable outfall concentrations ranged from
7,99 to 36.9 MPN/100L.
During the Calumet dry weather sampling, six (6) of 25 samples (24%) had detectable
adenovirus concentrations
(
see Tables 3
-
6 and 3-9).
There
were no detectable
concentrations upstream of the Calumet WRP.
The detectable downstream
concentrations ranged from 1,31 MPN/100L to 3.35 MPN/100L.
The outfall
concentrations ranged from 7.52 to 15.5 MPN/100L.
Of 50 wet weather samples, 42 or 84% demonstrated the presence of infectious virus by
assay in the PCL/PRF/5 cell line and had adenoviruses confirmed by PCR. Enteroviruses
or other enteric viruses were probably responsible for the observed CPE in the other
samples or the CPE of other viruses could have masked the presence of adenoviruses i.e.
the other enteric viruses were in higher concentrations.
During the North Side wet weather sampling, 14 of 16 samples
(
88%) had detectable
adenovirus concentrations
(
see 't'ables 3
-
8 and 3-10
).
The detectable concentrations
upstream ranged frorn 203 to 2,890 MPN/1001.
The detectable downstream
concentrations ranged from 105 to 2,870 MPN/100L. Only one (1) wet weather outfall
sample was collected at the North Side WRP that had an adenovirus concentration of
121 MPN/ 100L. Several of the upstream and downstream locations had concentrations
greater than the outfall. Due to safety concerns, the discharge of N13PS was sampled at
the nearest downstream location: North Side-DNS-WW-37 that had concentrations
ranging from 66.7 to 199 MPN/100L.
Final Wcidry-April 2008
51

 
Geosyn tec °
consultants
During the Stickney wet weather sampling, 15 of 16 samples (94%) had detectable
adenovirus concentrations (see Tables 3-8 and 3-10).
The detectable concentrations
upstream ranged from 3.5 to 1,280 MPN/104L,
The detectable downstream
concentrations ranged from 4.37 to 1,180 MPN/100L.
Only one wet weather outfall
sample was collected at the Stickney WRP that had an adenovirus concentration 1,308
MPN/1001..
All three (3) RAPS samples had detectable concentrations of adenovirus
ranging between 49.7 and 1,560 MPN/100L. The highest adenovirus concentration of
1,560 MPN/100L was detected during the 3 August 2006 sampling event when RAPS
discharged 655 MG in 14 hours and 55 minutes of operation.
During the Calumet wet weather sampling, 13 of 18 sarnples (72%) had detectable
adenovirus concentrations (see Tables 3-8 and 3-10). There was only one (1) detectable
concentration upstream of 14.7 MPN/100L. The detectable downstream concentrations
ranged from 6.24 MPN/100L to 33,277 MPN/100L. All three (3) wet weather outfall
samples collected at the Calumet WRP had detectable adenovirus concentrations ranging
from 10 to
355
MPN/1001-
Table 3-11 presents a comparison between dry and wet weather percentage of virus
sample detections
.
The results indicate that the percentage of adenovirus detections
during wet weather were greaten than the dry weather detections
.
The percentage of
adenovirus detections at the North Side waterway segment increased from 48% during
dry weather
to 87.5%
during wet weather
.
The percentage of adenovirus detections at the
Stickney waterway segment
.
increased
from 52%
during dry weather
to 94%
during wet
weather
.
The percentage of adenovirus detections at the Calumet waterway segment
increased
from 24% during dry
weather to 72% during wet weather. In addition, the
concentrations detected during wet weather sampling are generally greater than the dry
weather concentrations.
3.3.3
Calrelvli-rls
(
Nororvirus)
In the absence of cell culture, methods, the norovirus concentrations were estimated by
the RT-PCR method. However, several limiting factors need to be considered in the use
of RT-PCR results. First, the detection of viral gcnomes in water by standard RT-PCR
final
Weidry-April 2009
52

 
Geosynlec°
consultants
methods does not provide information about the infectivity of the viruses in question,
which impedes a meaningful health risk evaluation when high-virus concentrations are
obtained in samples. Second, the high sensitivity of R -PCR for routine monitoring of
norovirus has not been validated and standardized to demonstrate the reliability,
sensitivity, and accuracy of the technique.
Table 3-7 presents a summary of the dry weather
Calicivirus
or norovirus analytical
results. 't'able 3-8 summarizes the wet weather
Calicivirus
or norovirus analytical results.
During dry weather, norovirus was only detected in 5 sarnples or about
7% of the 75
samples. During the North Side dry weather sampling, only one outfall sample (1 of 25
samples [4
%
n:1) had a detectable norovirus concentration of 35,000 PCR MPN/1001. (see
Tables 3-7 and 3-9). The greatest concentration was observed
in an
outfall sample at the
North Side WRP (North Side Outfall-80405). The greater concentration
of Calicivirus
or
norovirus observed in this sample may be due to the fact that only duplicates per dilution
in the MPN assay could be performed because of reassay difficulties reducing the
precision of this analysis. In addition, of the five norovirus samples with MPN assays,
this sample was the only one that had a positive result in the highest dilution.
The
combination of these factors could have resulted in the relatively high MPN value of this
sample.
Therefore, the high
Calicivirus
concentration in the subject sample is likely an
artifact of these factors and it appears to be an outlier.
During the Stickney dry weather sampling
,
three
(
3) of 25 samples
(
12%n) had detectable
norovirus concentrations (see Tables 3-7 and 3-9).
The detectable concentrations
upstream ranged from 181 to 511 PCR MPN/1001.. There was only one (1) detectable
downstream concentration of 176 PCR MPN
/
1001...
During the dry weather sampling,
the Stickney WRP outfall did not have any detectable norovirus concentrations.
During the Calumet dry weather sampling, only one (1) outfall sample (one [11 of 25
samples [4
%
1) had a detectable norovirus concentration of 781 PCR MPN
/
100L, (see
Tables 3-7 and 3-9).
Noi-ovirus infection is most common in the winter and that may
explain the low concentration of norovirus observed in this study (Gerba, 2006).
Final Wetdry
-
April 2008
53

 
Geosyntec
consultants
During wet weather,
Ctalicivirus
or norovirus were only detected in 20 samples or 40% of
the 50 samples. The greatest concentration of norovirus was observed at RAPS upstream
of the Stickney WRP,
During the North Side wet weather sampling, seven (7) of 16
samples
(44%)
had detectable norovirus concentrations
(
see Tables 3-8 and 3-10). There
were no detectable concentrations of norovirus upstream of the North Side WRP. The
detectable downstream concentrations ranged from 66
.
9 to 3,930 PCR MPN/100L. Only
one (1) wet weather outfall sample was collected at the North Side WRP; it did not have
a detectable norovirus concentration
.
Therefore
,
the concentrations of norovirus
downstream of the WRP may be attributable to sources other than the outfall. Due to
safety concerns
,
the discharge of the North Branch Pumping Station was sampled at the
nearest downstream location
.
North Side-DNS
-
WW-37 that had one detectable
concentration of 99.1 PCR MPN/IDOL, during the 3 August 2007 wet weather sampling
event. The pumping station discharged a large volume of wastewater of about 115 MG in
11 hours and 15 minutes
,
between 2 and
3 August 2006.
During the Stickney wet weather sampling, 10 of 16 samples (63%) had detectable
norovirus concentrations
(
see Tables 3
-
8 and 3-10
).
T
he detectable concentrations
upstream ranged from 58.2 to 1,150 PCR MPN/100I.,,
The detectable downstream
concentrations ranged from 60 to 1,930 PCR MPN
/
1001..
Only one (1) wet weather
outfall sample was collected at the Stickney WRP, which had a norovirus concentration
of 682 PCR MPN/IDOL. Two (2) of the three (3) RAPS samples had detectable
concentrations of norovirus ranging between 2,590 and 5,700 PCR MPN/100L. The
highest concentration of 5,700 PCR MPN/100L was detected during the 10 dune 2006
sampling event when RAPS discharged 238 MG
in 7 hours and
25 minutes.
During the
Calumet
wet weather sampling, three
(
3) of 18 samples
(
17%)
had detectable
norovirus concentrations
(
see Tables 3
-
8 and 3-10). There were no detectable norovirus
concentrations upstream of the WRP. There was only one (1) detectable downstream
concentration of 85.3 PCRMPN/1001., during the 29 August 2006 sampling event. Two
(2) of the three (3) wet weather outfall samples collected at the Calumet WRP had
detectable norovirus concentrations ranging from 337 to 651 PCR MPN/100L.
Final WeldryApril2008
54

 
Geosynteel>
consultants
Table 3-11 presents a comparison between dry and wet weather percentage of virus
sample detections
.
The results indicate that the percentage of norovirus detections during
wet weather were greater than the dry weather detections
.
The percentage of adenovirus
detections at the North Side waterway segment increased
from 4%n
during dry weather to
44%v during wet weather.
The percentage of adenovirus detections at the Stickney
waterway segment increased
from 12%
during dry weather to 63
%
during wet weather.
The percentage of norovirus detections at the Calumet waterway segment
i
ncreased from.
4% during dry weather to 17% during wet weather
.
In addition
,
the concentrations
detected during wet weather sampling are generally greater than the dry weather
concentrations.
3.4
References
EPA, 2001, Method 1623:
Cjyptospvr•
idiunt
and
Giardia
in
water by filtration/IMS/FA,
EPA 815-R-01-025.
Office of Water, U.S.
Environmental
Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C.
EPA, 2003, Method 1623:
Cryptosporidium
and
Giardia
in
water by filtration/IMS/FA.
EPA-815-R-03-XXX. Office of Wafter, U. S. (Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C.
EPA, 2005, Method 1622:
Crypto.sporidium.
in water by filtration/IMS/FA, EPA 815-R-
05-001.
Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
D.C.
Gerba, 2006, Personal Communication.
Hardwood, V,J., A.D. Levine, T.M. Scott, V. Chivukula, J. Lukasik, S.R. Farrah, and J.B.
Rose, 2005, "Validity of the Indicator Organism Paradigm for the Pathogen
Reduction in Reclaimed Water and Public (Health Protection."
Applied and
Environmental Microbiology,
June. 3163-3170
Helsel D. R. and R.M. Hirsch
,
2002, Techniques of Water Resources Investigations of
The United States Geological Survey.
Book 4,
Hydrological Analysis and
Interpretation
.
Chapter 3, Statistical
Methods in
Water Resources. USGS
publication available at: http
//
water.usgsgov/pubs
/
twri/twri4a3/
.
September.
Helsel
Dennis R., 2005, Non Detects and Data Analysis, Statistics for Censored
Environmental Data. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey. PP 55 - 80,
pp 185-196.
Final
Weldry-Apol2008
55

 
Geosyntec O
consultants
Horman, A., R. Rimhanen-Finne, L. Maunula, C.H, von Bonsdorff, N. Torvela, A.
Heikinheimo, and M.L. Hdnninen, 2004,
"Campylobacter
spp.,
Giardia
spp.,
Cr)>ptosporidium
spp., Noroviruses, and Indicator Organisms in Surface Water in
Southwestern Finland, 2000-2001."
Applied and Environmental Microbiology.
87-95.
Jiang, S., R. Noble and W. Chu, 2001, "Human Adenoviruses and Coliphages in Urban
Runoff -- Impacted Coastal
Waters of Southern California."
Applied and
Environmental Microbiology,
January. 179-184.
Kasprzak,
W. and A.C. Majewka, 1983, "Infectivity
of Giardia
sp. cysts in relation to
eosin exclusion and excystation in vitro".
Tropenmedizine and Parasitologie,
3:70-72.
Metropolitan
Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago (MWRDGC), 2004,
Estimation of the
E. coli
to Fecal Coliform Ratio in Wastewater Effluent and
Ambient Waters, Report No. 04-10.
Minitab: Copyright 2005, lvlinitab Inc., Minitab 14.2. Copyright 2005, The R Foundation
for Statistical Computing. Version 2.2.0 (2005-10-06 r35749). ISBN 3-900051
07-0
Noble, R,T., J.F. Griffith, A.D. Blackwood, J.A. Fuhrman, J.B. Gregory, X. Hernandez,
X. Liang,
A.A. Bera and K. Schiff, 2006, "Multi-tiered Approach using
Quantitative PCR To Track Sources of Fecal Pollution Affecting Santa Monica
Bay, California."
Applied Environmental Microbiology,
February. 1604-1612.
Noble, RX., J.A. Fuhrman, 2001, "Enteroviruses Detected by Reverse Transcriptase
Polymerase Chain Reaction from the Coastal Waters of Santa Monica Bay,
California: Low Correlation to Bacterial Indicator Levels."
4ydrobiologia
460:
175-184.
Rochelle, P.A
.,
U.M. Ferguson
,
A.M. Johnson
,
and R
.
De Leon, 2001, "Quantification of
Cryptosporidi
.
urn parvam
Infection in Cell Culture Using a Colorimetric In Situ
Hybridization
.Assay."
J.
Eukaryot
..
Microbiol
.
48(5): 565-574.
Sauch, J. et al., 1991, "Propidium Iodide as an Indicator of
Giardia
Cyst Viability,"
Appl.
Environ. Microbiol,
57:3243-3247
Schupp, D.G. and S.L. Erlandsen, 1987, "A new method to determine
Giardia
cyst
viability: correlation of fluorescein diacetate and propidium iodide staining with
animal infectivity."
J.
Parasitol.
53:704-707.
Final
Wecclry-April 2008
56

 
Geosyntec
consultants
Smith, A.L. and H.V. Smith, 1989, "A comparison of fluorescein diacetate and
propidium staining and in vitro exeystation for determining
Giardia
intestinalis
cyst: viability."
P arcasitol.
Dec;99 Pt 3 3:329-331.
`rhiriat, L.,
F.
Sidaner and L Schwartzbrod
,
1998, "Determination of
Giardia
cysts
viability in environmental and fecal samples by irrlmmnofluorescence, fluorogenic
dye staining and differential interference contrast
microscopy"
Lett. Appl.
Microbi
.ol,
26:237.242.
Ward et al., 1984, J.
Clin. Microbiol.19:748-753
Final Wetdry
-
April 2009
57

 
SECTION 3
TABLES

 
Table 3-1b
.
Summary of the Dry Weather Stickney Bacteria Results-Continued
""Note of Deviation:
The dilutions for the
Pseudornonas aeruginosa
testing began at dilutions which did not yield desirable results; the minimum detection
limit was too high or plates were overgrown with other competing bacteria and mold growth. Therefore, the dilutions were ultimately
changed to 100 mL, 10 mL, and 1 mL of sample to accommodate. These dilutions are implemented from this point forward for the
Stickney sampling location.
Stickney-82405
Test
UPS-1Meter
UPS-Surface
DNS-IMeter
DNS-Surface
Outfall
P. aeruginosa
1,500 cfu/IOOmL F
700 cfu/ I OOmL r
600 cfu/ 100mL E
270 cfu/IOOrnL
14,600 cfulIOOmL
E. soli
3,000 cfu/ 1 OOmL e
2,000 cfu/I OOmL
17,000 cfu/IOOmL E
19,000 cfu/I OOmL r
34,000 of f IOOmL
E'nterococci
32 cfu/IOOmL F
44 cfu/ I OOmL
490 cfu/ 10OmL
550 cfu/IOOmL
1,010 cfu/IOOM1'
Salmonella
<1 MPN/1OOmL
<1 MPN/100mL
<1 MPN/100mL
<1 MPN/IOOrmL
<1 MPN/IOOmL
Fecal Coliform
2,000 cfu/IOOmL E
7,000 cfulIOOmL
47,000 cfu/100rnL
42,000 cfu/1 OOmL
33,000 cfu/IOOmL
**Note of Deviation:
The dilutions for the
Salmonella
testing began at 100 mL, 10 mL, and 1 mL of sample in a series of five each. Changes to the
dilutions were made at the request of Ceosyntec Consultants. The dilutions were changed to 1 L and 100 mL of sample in a series of
five each and are implemented from this point forward for the Stickney sampling location.
Stickney-83105
Test
UPS-IMeter
UPS-Surface
DNS-IMeter
DNS-Surface
Outfall
P. aeruginosa
140 cfu/IOOmL
10 cfo/I OOrnL
200 cfu/ I OOrnL E
100 cfu/1 OOmL E
3,700 cfu/100mL E
E. soli
10 cfu/IOOmL E
40 cfu/IOOmL E
8,000 cfu/ I C)OML E
8,000 cfu/IOOmL E
21,000 efulIOOmL
Enterococci
2 cfull00mL c
4 cfulIOOmL E
480 cfulI OOmL
280 cfu/1 OOmL
5,000 cfu/IOOML F
Salmonella
<1 MPNIIL
<1 MPN11 L
0.62 MPN/IL
<1 MPN/1L
<1 MPN/lL
Fecal Coliform
2,000 cfu/1 OOmL E
190 cfu/1 OOmL E
23,000 cfu/IOOmL.
22,000 cfulI OOmL
45,000 cfu/100rmL
*E - Indicates the reported value
i
s an Estimated Count
.
The number of colonies counted did not fall into the recommended limits of 20-8
0
cfu / filter
for
E
.
toll
and 20-60 cfu
/
filter for fecal Coliform and
Enterococci.
For
Pseudomonas aeruginosa
it indicates mold interference
,
or one of the dilutions
did not confirm.

 
Table 3-la. Summary of the Dry Weather North Side Bacteria Results
North Side-72805
Test
UPS-Meter
UPS-Surface
DNS-XMeter
DNS-Surface
OutfaIl
P. aerugin,,,?sa
200 cfu/IOOmL
300 cfu/lOOrmL
1,600 cfu/IOOznL
3,000 cfull00mL
3,600 cfu/IOOmL
E. coli
200 cfu/IOOmL
70 efu/IOOmL F
20,000 cfu/IOOmL
14,000 cfu/ I OOrmL E
31,000 cfu/I OOmL
Enterococci
80 efullOOmL
40 cfu/ 1 OOmL
570 cfu/IOOmL
640 cfu/IOOmL E
1,950 cfu/ I OO,mL E
Salmonella
<1 MPN/1OOmL
<1 MPN/100mL
< I PN/IOOmL
<1 -MPN/1OOr►L
<1 MPN/100mL
Fecal Coliform
910 cfu/IOOmL E
970 cfu/ 1 OOmL E
37,000 cfu/IOOruL
52,000 cfu/I OOmL
28,000 cfulI OOmL
North Side-80405
Test
UPS-1Meter
UPS-Surface
DNS-1Meter
DNS-Surface
Outfall
P_aeruginosa
<100 cfull OOmL
40 cfu/IOOmL
70 cfu/IOOmL E
10 cfu/IOOrnL
400 cfu/i00mL E
E. soli
630 cfu/IOOmL
40 efu/IOOmL
26,000 cfulI OOmL
13,000 cful IOOmL E
16,000 cfu/IOOML c
Enterococci
82 cfulIOOmL
2$ cfu/IOOmL. E
1,000 cfu/IOOML E
1,680 cfu/ 1 OOrmL e
l ,000 cfu/IOOmt. E
Salmonella
<1 MPNAOOmL
<1 MPN/100mL
<1 MPN/lOOmL
<1 MPN1100niL
<1 MPN/lOOmL
Fecal Coliforrn
3,000 cfu/IOOnL F
30 cfu/lOOmL E
50,000 cfu/1OOmL
37,000 dull OOmL
55,000 cfu/1OML
North Side-81805
Test
UPS-TMeter
UPS-Surface
DNS-l Meter
DNS-Surface
Outfall
P. aeruginosa
600 cfu/IOOmL E
700 cfu/IWmL F
1,800 cfulI OOmL E
600 cfu/IOOmL E
700 cfu/100mL r
E. coli
20 cfu/IOOmL E
710 cfu/1OOmL
6.000 cfu/IOOmL E
21,000 cfu/ I OOmL
30,000 cfu/100mL
Enterococci
104 cfu/100mL
126 cfu/l OOmL E
4,000 cfullOOmL E
1,140 cfu/IOOmL F
6,000 cfu/IOC)ML E
Salmonella
<1 -MPN/lOOmL
<1 MPN/ 100mL
<1 MPN/1OOml,
0,9 MPN/IOOmL
<1 MPN/IOOmL
Fecal Coliform
50 cfu/IOOmL E
1,000 cfu/IOOmL E
16,000 cfu/I OOnL E
41,000 cfu/ I OOmL
45,000 cfu/1 OOmL

 
Table
Ma. Summary of the Dry Weather North Side Bacteria Results-Continued
"Note of Deviation:
The dilutions for the
Pseadontonas aeruginosa
testing began at dilutions which did not yield desirable results; the minimum detection
limit was too high or plates were overgrown with other competing bacteria and mold growth. Therefore, the dilutions were ultimately
changed to 100 mL, 10 mL, and 1 mL of sample to accommodate. These dilutions are implemented from this point forward for the
North Side sampling location.
North
Side-82505
Test
P. aeruginosa
E. coli
Ewerococci
Salmonella
Fecal Coliform
UPS-1Meter
504 cfu/I00ML s
7,000 cfu/IOOmL E
146 cfull OOmL E
<1 MPN/100mL
6,000 cfu/IOOmL
UPS-Surface
2,500 cfuf 1 OOmL r
220 cfu/ I OOmL
62 cfu/IOOmL
<1 MPN/lOOmL
4,010 cfu/ 1 OOmL r'
DNS-IMeter
700 cfulIOOmL F
8.000 cfulIOOmL
1,010 cfu/IOOmL r
2.2 MPNIIOOmL
26>O00 cful100mL
DNS-Surface
700 cfu/I0()ML
e
50.000 cfu/
I
OOmL
580 cfu/ t OOmL
13 MPN/IOOrnL
45,000 cfu/IOOrnL
Outfall
900 cfull OOmL E
32,000 cfuf I OOmL
740 cfu/IOOmL '
<1 MPN/IOOmL
44,000 cfuf I OOmL
**Note of Deviation:
The dilutions for the
Salmonella
testing began at 100 mL. 10 mL, and 1 mL of sample in a series of five each. Changes to the
dilutions were made at the request of Geosyntec Consultants. The dilutions were changed to I L and 100 mL of sample in a series of
five each and are implemented from this point forward for the Northside sampling location.
North Sides-90105
Test
UPS-Meter
UPS-Surface
DNS-1Meter
DNS-Surface
Outfall
P. aeruginosa
27,700 cfu/IOOmL ^
15,800 cfu/IOOmL e
11,800 cfu/I00ML ^
4,700 efu/IOOrnL e
1,700 cful100mL
c
E. coli
2.000 cfu/IOOmL Y'
150
cfu/I OOmL
E
32,000 cfu/IOOmL
6,000 cfu/100mL ^
27,000 efulI OOmL
^
Enteroogeci
24 cfu/IOOmL e
22 cfu/IOOmL c
810 cfull OOmL
e
810 cfu
/IOOmL
920 cfu/100mL
Salmonella
<1 MPN/IL
<1 MPN/1L
<1 MPNIIL
2.1 MPN/1L
1.7 MPN/1L
Fecal Coliform
790 cfulIOOmL
450 cfu/IOOmL
33,000 cfu/l OOmL
49,000 cfu/IOOmL
45,000
cfull
OOmL
Ik
- Indicates the reported value
i
s an Estimated Count
.
The number of colonies counted did not fall
i
nto the recommended limits of 20
-
80 efu f filter
for E
.
coh
and 20
-
50 cfu
/
filter for Fecal Conform and
Enteroeocei
-
For
Pseudomonas aerugin:osa
it indicates mold interference or one of the dilutions
did not confirm.

 
Table 3-1b.
Summary of
the Dry Weather Stickney
Bacteria Results
Stickney-80105
Test
UPS- IMeter
UPS-Surface
DIMS-IMeter
DNS-Surface
Outfall
P. aeruginosa
<100 cfu/IOOmL
100 cfu/ IOOmL
<I00 cfu/l00ML
<100 cfu/1OOML.
1,000 cfu/ J OOmL
E. coli
1,000 cfulIOOmL E
550 cful l OOmL
2,000 cfull OOmO
3,000 cfu/IOOML E
14,000 cfuf 100ml, E
En terococci
36 cfu/IOOmL '
40 cfu/IOOmL
28 cfu/IOOrnL n
28 cfu/100ML E
2,530 cfu/IOOmL e
Salmonella
<1 MPN/lOOmL
<1 MPNf 1 OOmL
< IMPN1100ml-
<1 MPN/100mL
<1 MPN/lOOmL
Fecal Coliform
430 cfulI OOmL
4,000 cfulIOOmL e
1,210 cfu/IOOmL E
5,000 cfu/
100ml, c
32,000 cfu/IOOmL
Stickney-80305
Test
UPS-1Meter
UPS-Surface
DNS- IMeter
DNS-Surface
Outfall
P. aeruginosa
90 cfu/ I GOmL
580 cfu/IOOmL
<10 cfu/ l OOmL
20 cfu/IOOrmL
1,180 cfuf I OOmL
E tali
140 cfull00mL e
<1,000 efu/I OOmL
9,000 cfu/IOOmL s
7,000 cfu/ I OOmL
53,000 cfu/l OOmL
Enterococci
6 cfu/ i OOmL E
10 cfu/ 1001nL E
68 cfu/100mL
34 cfu/I00ml, E
2,640 cfu/IOOmL E
Salmonella
<1 IMPN/100mL
<1 MPN/100mL
1.38 MPNIIOOrmL
<1 MPN/100mL
<1 MPN/lOOmL
Fecal Coliform
550 cfu/IOOmL
790 cfu/
IOOmL E
14,000 cfu/100ml,
r
22,000 cfu/100ml,
50,000 cfu/IOOmL
Stickney-81745
Test
UPS-lMeter
UPS-Surface
DNS-
IMeter
DNS-Surface
Outfall
P. aeruginoso
<10 cfu/lOOmL
<10 cfu/IOOmL
<10 cfu/IOOmL
<10 cfu/IOOrmL
800 cfu/ I OOmL E
E, coli
Enierococci
1,000
c£u
/IOOmL E
54 cfullOOmL
50 efull OOmL F-
6 cfu/I OOrnL E
36,000 cfu/IOOmL
204 cfu/ I OOmL E
13,000 cfu/100mL
92 cfu/1OOmL
>;
39.000
cfullOOmL
980 cfu/l OOmL >v
Salmonella
<1 MPN/IOOmL
<1 MPN/IOOrnL
<I MPN/IOOmL
<1 MPN/lOOmL
<1 MPN/lOOmL
Fecal Coliform
650 efu/10OrnL rr
690 cfut I OOrnL e
32,000 cfu/IOOmL
45,000 cfull OOmL.
240,000 cfu/100rmL

 
Table 3-1c. Summary of the Dry Weather Calumet Bacteria Results
Calumet-72505
Test
UPS-IMeter
UPS-Surface
DNS-IMeter
DNS-Surface
Outfall
P, aeruginosa
300 efulIOOmL
200 cfu/ I OOmL
<I00 cfu/IOOmL
<100cfu/100ml-
<I00 cfu/IOOmL
E. coli
130 cfu/IOOmL
110 cfu/IOOmL e
1,000 cfu/IOOmL
1,540 cfu/100rnL r
5,000 cfu/1OOmL
Enterococci
10 cfu/ I OOmL E
50 cfu/10OmL'
30 cfu/IOOmL E
70 cfu/ 100mL r;
690 cfu/ I OOmL r
Salmonella
<1 MPN/lOOmL
<1 MPN/IOOmL
< IMPN/100mL
<1 MPN/IOOrmL
<1 MPN/IOOmL
Fecal Coliform
530 cfu/ I 00ml-
60 cfu/I OOmL r''
1,300 cfu/IOOmL ^
4,000 cfulIOOmL e
22,000 cfu/IOOmL
Calumet-80205
Test
UPS-IMeter
UPS-Surface
DNS-IMeter
DNS-Surface
Outfall
P. aeruginosa
<100 cfu/I00mL
<I 00 cfu/100mL
<100 cfu/IOOmL
<100 cfullOOmL
<100 cfu/IOOn-L
E. soli
180 cfu/IOOmL
170 cfu/ I OOmL E
1,600 cfu/IOOmL
1,480 cful100ml, r
12,000 cfu/l 00ML rs
Fnterococci
32 cfu/I00mL E
32 cfulIMmL e
42 cfu/IOOmL
42 cfulIOOmL
1,700 cfu/IOOmL E
Salmonella
<1 MPN/IOOmL
<1 MPN/lOOrnL
< 1 MPN/l OOmmL
<1 MPNIIOOmL
<1 MPN/100mL
Fecal Coliform
2I0 cfu/l00rrrL.
320 cfu/IOOmL
890 cfu/IOOmL E
2,000 cfu/l OOmL r
45,000 cfu/I OOmL
Calumet-81605
Test
UPS-IMeter
UPS-Surface
DNS-IMeter
DNS-Surface
Outfall
P. aeruginosa
30 cfu/IOOmL
10 cfull00mL
160 efu/I OOmL
440 cfu/I00mL
300 cfu/IOOmLE
E. coli
220 cfu1100mL
30 cfu/IOOmL G
1,680 cfu/ I OOmL
1,000 cfu/100mL c
29,000 cfulIOOmL
Enzerococci
44 cfu/lOOmL
160 cfu/IOOmL
58 cfu/I00niL
50 cfu/ 100rnL
1,470 dull OOmL E
Salmonella
<1 IMPN1100mL
<1 MPN/IOOmL
020 MPN/lOOmL
0.45 MPN/lOOmL
0.20 MPN/IOOmL
Fecal Coliform
50 cfu/ I OOmL F
130 cfu/IOOmL E
8,000 cfu/IOOmL E
14,000 efulIOOmL E
41,000 cfu/IOOmL

 
Table 3-1c. Summary of the Dry Weather Calumet Bacteria Results-Continued
"Note
of Deviation-
The dilutions for the
Pseudomonas aeruginosa
testing began at dilutions which did not yield desirable results; the minimum detection
limit was too high or plates were overgrown with other competing bacteria and mold growth. Therefore, the dilutions were ultimately
changed to 100 m.L, 10 rnL, and I mL of sample to accommodate. These dilutions are implemented from this point forward for the
Calumet sampling location.
Calumet-82305
Test
UPS-INleter
UPS-Surface
DNS-1Meter
DNS-Surface
Outfall
P. aeraginosa
<10 cfu/100mL
90 cfu/IOOmL
20 cfu/IOOmL
<10 cfu/100mL
9 cfu/IOOmL
E. soli
70 cfulIOOmL E
80 cfu/IOOmL E
4,000 cfu/IOOmL
4,000 cfu/IOOmL
3,000 cfu/IOOmL
.Enterococci
46 cfulI00mL
30 cfu/IOOmL E
32 cfulI OOmL E
40 cfu/100mL
510 cfu/IOOmL
Salmonella
<1 MPN/100mL
<1 MPN/100mL
<1 MPN/IOOmL
<I MPN/IOOmL
<1 MPNIIOOi-nL
Fecal Coliform
70 cfu/ I OOmL E
190 cfu/IOOmL E
10,000 c€u/I00mL E
2,200 cfu/100mL E
48,000 cfu/IOOmL.
**Note
of Deviation:
The dilutions for the
Salmonella
testing began at 100 mL, 10 mL, and 1 mL of sample in a series of five each. Changes to the
dilutions were made at the request of Geosyntec Consultants. The dilutions were changed to 1 L and 100 mL of sample in a series of
five each and are implemented from this point forward for the Calumet sampling location.
Calumet-63005
Test
UPS-Meter
UPS-Surface
DNS-TMeter
DNS-Surface
Outfall
P. Aeruginosa
2,520 cfu/I00ml-
500 cfu/ l OOmL
2,050 cfu/IOOmL
1,030 cfu/IOOmL
5,300 cfu/IOOmL
E. coli
10 efu/IOOmL
20 cfu/ I OOmL
510 cfulIOOmL
390 cfu/IOOmL
100,000 cfu/ I OOmL E
Enterococci
62 cfu/IOOrnL
68 cfulIOOmL
82 cfullOOmL
210 cfu/IOOmL
1,440 cfu/IOOmL E
Salmonella
<1 MPN/1L
<1 MPN/IL
<1 MPN/IL
<1 MPN/1L
<1 MPNI1 L
Fecal Coliform
530 efulI OOm.L
200 cfu/I00niL
5,000 cfu/ 100ML E
1,600 cfu/ l OOmL c
290,000 cfu/1OOmL
*E - Indicates the reported value is an Estimated Count. The number of colonies counted did not fall into the recommended limits of 20-80 cfu / filter
for E.
soli
and 20-60 cfu / filter for Fecal Coliform and
Enterococci.
For
Pseudomonas aeruginasa
it indicates
mold interference, or one of the dilutions
did not confirm.

 
Table 3-1d
.
Summary of the Wet Weather North Side Bacteria Results
North Side-62606
Test
UPS-WW-102
DNS-WW-36
DNS-VVW-37
DNS-WW-73
DNS-WW-39
P. aeru
inosa
6,000 cfu/IOOmL , 8,400 cfu/IOOmL ^
2,600 cfu/IOOmL'
7;400 cfu/100mL
4,600 cfulIOOn-iL,
E. soli
18,000 cfu/IOOmL'
12,000 cfu/IOOmL
33,000 cfu/1OOmL
27,000 cfu/IOOmL
40,000 cfu/l OOmL
Enterococci
9,400 cfu/IOOmL i 8,400 cfu/IOOmL
13,000 cfu/IOOmL'
14,000 cfu/IOOmL.
12,000 cfu/IOOmL
Salmonella
3.40 MPN/IL
1.11
MPN/IL
28.9 MPN/IL
33.4 MPN/1L
1.64 MPNIIL
Fecal Coliform
42,000 cfu/] 00mL
54,000 cfu/100niL
53,000 cfu/IOOmL
44,000 cfu/iOOmL
110,000 cfu/IOOmL
North Side-80306
Test
UPS-WW-102
DNS-WW-36
DNS-WW-37
_DNS-WW-73
DNS-WW-39
P._aeru^inosa
6,200 efu/IOOmL
4,000 cfu/100roL
5,000 efulIOOmL
6,300 cfu/IOOmL
1,700 cfu/IOOmL'
E Cali
36,000 cfu/1OOmL
13,000 cfu/I00ML `
27,000 cfu/IOOmL
41,000 cfu/IOOmL
34,000 cfu/I00ml-
Enterococci
18,000 cfu/lOOmL'
5,800 cfu/100mL
9,800 cfulIOOmL
7,400 cfu/IOOn-L
5,400 cfu/IOOmL
Salmonella
037 MPN/IL
3.46 MPN/1L
4.81 MPN/1L
2.66 MPNIIL
16.22 MPN/IL
Fecal Col€form
i
580,000 cfu/IOOmL
62,000 cfu/IOOmL'
180,000 cfu/lOOmLL
280,000
cfu/IOOmL
400,000 cfu/IOOmL
North Side-92346
Test
UPS-WW-102
DNS-WW-36
DNS-WW-37 ^ DNS-WW-73
DNS-WW
-
39
Outfall
P_ aeruginosa
8,200 cfu/IOOmL
7,400 cfu/IOOmL
4,800 cfu/lOOmL
4,800 cfu/10OmL
4,000 cfu/l00mL
800 cfu/IOOmL
E. coli
22,000 cfu/IOOmL
17,000 cfu/IOOmL'
34,000 cfu/1OOmL
51,000 efufIOOmL
26,000 cfu/IOOmL
21,000 cfu/IOOmL
[
Enterococci
8,600 cfu/IOOmL
3,400 cfu/IOOmL
34,000 cfu/100mL.
38,000 cfu/IOD
L
8,000 cfu/IOOmL
3,000 cfu/IOOmL
}
Salmonella
10.4 MPN/IL
1.00 MPN/IL
1.13 MPN/1L
192 MPNIIL
1.83 MPN/IL
0.54 MPN/IL
F
Fecal Coliform
66,000 cfu/IOOmL
56,000 cfulIOOmL
70,000 efullOOmL.
72,000( fu/100mL
230,000 cfuf I DOmL
22,000 cfu/IOOmL

 
Table 3-1d
.
Summary
of the Wet Weather North Side
Bacteria Results-Continued
*E - Indicates the reported value is an
Estimated Count
as follows:
E. coli
- the number of colonies counted did not fall within the recommended limits of 20
-
80 cfa
1
filter.
Fecal Coliform and
Entterococci
-
the number of colonies counted did not fall within the recommended
limits of 20-
50 cfulfilter.
P. aeruginosa
-
the number of colonies counted did not fall within the recommended
limits of 20-
80 cfu
I
filter, one
of the dilutions did not confirm or mold interference.

 
Table 3-1e. Summary of the
W
et
Feather Stickney Bacteria Results
Stickney-61006
Test
UPS-WW-
40
UPS-WW
-
75
RAPS
DNS-WW
-
41
DNS-
W
W-42
^
it
P. aeruginosa
13,000 cfu/I OOmL
42,000 cfu/IOOmL
49,000 cfu/IOOmL
6,000 cfu/IOOmL-
29,000 cfullOOmL
E. coli
42,000 cfu/IOOrnL
160,000 cful100n-i '
300,000 cfu/100ml..
46,000 cfu/l OOrnL
410,000 cfu/IOOmL
(
Enterococci
11,000 cfull OOmL
30,000 cfu/IOOniL
200,000 cfullOOmL
52,000 cfu/IOOrnL
100,000 cfullOOML
Salmonella
0.43 MPN/IL
0.37 MPN11L
2.30 MPN/IL
0.14 MPN/IL
1.33 MPN/IL
Fecal Coliform ._
80,000 cfu/I0Orn4'
460,000 cfu110OmL
450,000 cfu/IOOmL
300,000 cfu/IOOmL
1,060,000 cfu/10OmL
"Note
of Deviation:
Due to sample filtration, a portion of the
Salmonella
dilutions were out of the 24 hour recommended bolding time, specifically
the following:
Stickney-LIPS-'W-W-40-61006, the 2L dilution, 4 out of 5 exceeded 24 hours; Stickney-UPS-WW-75-610116, the 2L dilution, 2
out of 5 exceeded 24 fours; Stickney-RAPS-61006, the 2L dilution, 4 out of 5 exceeded 24 hours; Stickney-RAPS-61006, the
IL dilution, 1 out of 5 exceeded 24 hours; Stickney-DNS-WW-41-61006, the 2L dilution, I out of 5 exceeded 24 hours.
Stieltney-80306
Test
UPS-Wig'-40
UPS-WW-75
RAPS
DNS-WW-41
DNS-yVW-42
P. aeru inosa
15,000 cfull OOn-L
7,800 cfu/ 1 OOmL
_
75,000 cfu/100mL
6,400 cfu/ I00rnl-
42,000 cfulIOOmL }
E. coli
280,000 cfu/IOOmL
360,000 cfu/IOOmL
480,000 cfulIOOmL
160,000 cfu/IOOmL
100,000 c€ulIOOrnL
Enterococci
52,000 cfulIOOmL
60;000 cfu/100ml-
260,000 cfu/IOOmL
42,000 cfu/IOOmL
51,000 cfu/IOOmL
Salmonella
124 MPN/I I.,
0.63 MPN/I L
0.35 MPN/I L
0.95 MPNII L
4.90 MPN/I L
Fecal Coliform
3,440,000 efu/IMmL'
2,540,000 cfu/IOOmL'
11,700,000 cfu/IOOmL L
_1,400,000 cfu/100mL"
540,000 cfu/IOOmL
**Note of Deviation:
Due to sample filtration, a portion of the
Salmonella
dilutions were out of the 24 hour recommended holding time.
Specifically, Stickney-RAPS-80306; the 2L dilution, 5 out of 5 exceeded 24 hours.

 
Table 3
-
1e. Summary of the Wet Weather Stickney Bacteria Results-Continued
Stickney-101106
Test
UPS-WW-40
UPS-WW-75
RAPS
DNS-WW-41
DNS-WW-42
Outfail
P. Aeru inosa
1,000 cfu/1OOML1
__
1,200 cfu/ IOOmL'
-- 500 cfu/100-
mLL
5,200 efull00mL
200 cfulI OOmL
6,800 cfu1100rnL
E. coli
2,000 cfu/1OOm1_-
2,000 cfu/IOOmL L
2,000 cfu/IOOmL'
28,000 cfu/IOOmL
3,000 efu/IOOmI
14,000 cfu/IOOmL
Enterococei
<200 cfu/ I OOmL
1,000efu/IOOmL' I 1,800 cfu/IOOmL
14,000cfu/100mL'
600cful1OOmL'
9,800cfullOOmL
Salmonella
20.0 MPN/1L
1.74 MPN/IL
j
0.41 MPN/1L
1.70 MPN/1L
0.71 MPN/1L
3.47 MPItil1L
Fecal Coliforr►
1,000 cfu/IOOmL
10,000 cfu/lOOmL ' 8,000 cfu/1OOMC"
64,000 cfu/IOOmL
10,000 cfu1100mV' ' 39,000 cfu/IOOmL
*'Note of Deviation:
Due to sample filtration, a portion of the Salmonella dilutions were out of the 24
hour
recommended holding time, specifically
the following= Stickney-UPS-WW-40-101106, the 2L dilution, 2 out of 5 exceeded 24 hours; and Stickney-RAPS-101106, the
2L dilution, 3 out of 5 exceeded 24 hours.
All samples in the data sets passed QAP and details may be reviewed on each raw data report. Each raw data report contains
the required positive and negative control information, as well as sterility checks that were performed. Information is also
provided on the sample temperature and incubation period, as defined in each procedure. Pertinent logs have also been
provided in this final report. This testing was completed by Keri Dowell, Katy Howell, Julie Birdsong and Dustin Smith.
"E - Indicates the reported value is an Estimated Count as follows:
E. coli
-
the number of colonies counted did not fall within the recommended limits of 20
-
80 cfu
1
filter.
Fecal Coliform
and
Enterococei
-
the number of colonies counted did not fall within
the recommended
limits of
20-60
cfu / filter.
P. Aeruginosa
-
the number of colonies counted did not fall within the recommended limits of 20
-
80 cfu / filter, one
of the dilutions did not
confirm
or mold interference.

 
Table 3-If. Summary of the Wet Weather Calumet Bacteria Results
Calumet-82406
Test
UPS-WW
-
56 ^ DNS-WW
-
76
DNS-WW-58
DNS-WW-59
DNS-WW
-
43
Outfali
P. Aeruginosa
_
1,400 cfu
/
lOOruL
4,104 cfu/100mL
1,300
cfu/IOOmL
3,
200 cfu/100mL
9,000 cfu
/
1QOrnL
2,000 cful100mL
E. coli
<200 cfu
/
10OmL
<200 cfullOOmL
3,400 efulIWmL
'
<
200 cfulI OOmL
2,000 cfu
/
100rnL'
6,000 cfulIOOmL
Enterococci
<
100 cfu
/
100mL
800 cfu
/
14OmL
-
1,400 cful I OOmL
"
2,600 cfu
/
I OOmL
'
5,600 cfu/10OmL
2,400 cfu/ I OOmL
Salmonella
6.53 MPN
/1L
0.37
MPNIIL
1.43
MPN
/
IL
0.064 MPN11L
1.27 MPN/IL
1.08
MPN/1L
Feca
l
Coliformn
2
,
000 efu/1 OOmL
`
4,000 cfu/IOOmL "
21,000 cfu
/
IOOmL
5,000 cfulIOOrmL
'
14,000 cfu/100mL'
4,000 efu/IOOmL
Calumet-82906
Test
UPS-WW-56
_
DNS-WW-76
DNS-WW-58
DNS-WW-59
DNS-WW-43
Outfall
P. aeru inosa
3,740 cfu/IOO aL
4,600 cfu/100mL
22,400 eft VIOO L
24,000 cfu/100mL
21,000 cfu/100ml.,
3,204 cfu/I OOmL
E. coli
_
770 cfu/100mL
40,000 cfu/IOOmL
65,000 cfu/IOOmL
52,000 cfu1104mL
170,000 cfu/IOOmL
15,000 cfu/IO4mL
Enterococci
1,400 cfu/IOOmL L
12,000 cfu/100mL
46,000 cfulIOOmL
56,000 efullOO mL
40,040 cfu/IOOmL
5,804 cfu/I OOmL
Salmonella
12-2 MPN/11-
0.88 MPN/IL
0.46 MPN/1L
0.46 MPNIIL
0.37 MPN/IL
0.21
MPN/1L
Fecal Coliform
22,000 cfu/100mL
200,000 cfu/104m
144,000 cfu/IOOmL
44,000 cfu/IOOmL
28,000 cfu/I OOmL"
69,400 cfu/IOOmL
Calumet
-
101706
Test
UPS-WW-56
DNS
-
WW-76
DNS-WW-58
DNS-WW-59
DNS-WW
4
3
Outfall
P. aeruginosa
1,300 cfu/IOOmL,
2,300 cfu/100mL
28,000 cfu/100mL
2,800 cfu/IOOmL
1,340 cfu/100mL
15,000 cfu/100mL
E. coli
140 cfu/IOOmL'`
7,800 cfu/100mL
12,000 cfu/100mL"
3,600 cfu/IOOmL-
1,200 cfu/IOOmL'
16,000 cfulIOOmL'
Enterococci
260 cfu/ 100mLu
1,300 cfu/100rrtL
6,600 cfu/IOOmL
1,700 cfulIOOmL'
2,500 cfu/100mL
5,800 efu/100niL
Salmonella
0
.54 MPN/1L
1-20 MPN/1L
2.03 MPN/IL
20.5 MPN/IL
1.08 MPN/IL
1.76 MPN/1L
Fecal
Coliform
600 cfu1100mL '
27,000 cfu/100mL
17,000 cfu/100ml.
7,800 cfu/1 QOmL
3,400 cfu1100mL
58000 cfu/100mL
*Note of Deviation:
Due to sample filtration, a portion of the
Salmonella
dilutions were out of the 24
hour
recommended holding time.
Specifically, Calumet UPS-WW-56-101706; the 2L dilution, 3 out of 5 exceeded 24 hours.

 
Table M Summary of the Wet Weather Calumet Bacteria Results-Continued
"E - Indicates the reported value is an Estimated Count as follows:
E. soli
- the number of colonies counted did not fall within the recommended limits of 20-80 cfu / filter.
Fecal Coliform and
Enterococci
- the number of colonies counted did not fall within the recommended limits of 20-
60 cfu / filter.
P. aeraginosa -
the number of colonies counted did not fall within the recommended limits of 20-80 cfu / filter, one
of the dilutions did not confirm or mold interference.

 
Table 3-2a. Dry Weather Geometric Mean Bacteria Concentrations (in CFU/100 mL;
Salmonella
in MFN/100 mL)
Site
Location
Sam lina
dates
E. coli
Fecal
coliform
Enterocoecus
t
'
sendomonas
aerug^nosa
Salmonellae
UPS
7128/05 - 9/1105
273
713
58
66_5_
S.I.D. x
North Side
Outfall
7/28/05 - 9/1/05
26,413
42,411
1,514
1,091
S.1-D. x
DNS
7128/05 - 911/05
15,710
36,687
1,007
999
0.316
UPS
811105 - 8/31/05
254
1,061
14
62
S.I.D. y
Stickney
Outfall
8/1/05 - 8/31/05
29,042
56,391
2,013
2,195
S.X.D. x
DNS
811105 - 8131/05
91043
17,491
127
31
0109
UPS
7/26/05 - 8/30/05
71
170
43
67
S.I.D. x
I
Calumet
Outfall
7/26/05 - 8/30/05
13,917
56,287
1.048
65
0.112
!
DNS
7126/05 -
8/30/05
1,370
3,520
55
49
0.113
Note:
S.I.D. - Statistically Insignificant Data.
Most samples (more than 80%) had concentrations below the analytical detection
limit of l MI'N/100mL for dry weather samples. Therefore, the geometric mean was not estimamd-

 
Table 3-2b. Wet Weather
Geometric Mean Bacteria Concentrations
(in CFUIIOO
mL;
Salmonella
.
in AVNiL)
Sampling dates
Fecal
Pseudo.nonas
Site
Location
-
_
-
E. coli
Enterococcus
coiiforrn
aeru
i
nosa
Salmonella
I North Side
UPS
6126/06-9123106
24,262
11,347
117,399
6,723
3.00
OutfaIl
9123/06
20,952
3,011
22,026
796
0.54
DNS
6/26/06-9/23106
27,106
10,327
100,962
4,675
3.61
Stickney
UPS
6/10/06-10111/06
45,101
13,920
172,819
8,049
1.04
Outfall
10/11/06
14,045
9,799
38,949
6,768
3.06
DNS
6/10/06-10111106
54,176
21,340
?31,345
6,453
1.01
Calumet
UPS
8124106-14117106
279
331
2,981
1,888
3.50
Outfall
8/24/06-10/17/06
11,309
4,330
25,168
4,583
0.74
DNS
8/24/06-10/17/06
6,073
5473
19,165
5,914
0.86

 
Table 3-3a. Dry Weather
Indigenous
Cryptosporidium
4ocysts and
Giardia
Cysts
in Samples
Collected
at the
North Side
Waterway Segment
Sample Si
te
Sample Volume
Collected (L)
Sample Volume
Analyzed (L)
No.of
Giardia
Cysts
Detected in Volume
No. of Giardia
Cysts'
No, of
Cryptosporidium
Oocysts
Detected in
No,
of
Cryptospoddium
OocystslL
Analyzed
Volume Analyzed
North Side - Outfall 7128!05
20
6.7
6
0.9
0
<0.2
North Side -UPS -1 Meter 72805
18.9
6.3
1
0.2
0
<0.2
North Side - U PS- Surface 72805
18.9
6.3
1
0.2
0
<0.2
North Side - DNS -1 Meter 72805
18.9
6.3
7
1.1
0
<0.2
North Side - DNS - Surface 72805
18.9
6.3
3
0.5
0
<0.2
North Side - Outfall 8-4-05
20
6.7
26
3.9
1
0.1
North Side - UPS -1 Meter 80405
18.9
9.4
0
0.0
0
<0.1
North Side - UPS- Surface 80405
18.9
9.4
0
0.0
2
0.2
North Side - DNS - 1 Meter 80405
18.9
6.3
2
0.3
0
<0.2
North Side - DNS - Surface 80405
18.9
6.3
3
0.5
1
0.2
North Side - Ouffall 8-18-05
20
6.7
4
0.6
0
<0.2
North Side - UPS -1 Meter 81805
18.9
1.2
0
0.0
0
<0.8
North Side - UPS- Surface 81805
18.9
1.0
0
H
0
<1.0
North Side -DNS - 1 Meter 81805
18.9
9.4
0
0.0
0
<0.2
North Side - DNS - Surface 81805
18.9
6.3
0
0.0
1
0.1
North Side - Outfai( 8-25.05
20
6.7
14
2.1
4
0.6
North Side - UPS -1 Meter 82505
18.9
1.0
0
0.0
0
<1.0
North Side -LIPS- Surface 82505
18.9
6.3
2
0.3
0
<0.2
North Side - DNS -1 Meter 82505
18.9
3.2
2
0.6
If
0.3
North Side - DNS - Surface 82505
18.9
6.3
10
1.6
6
1.0
North Side - Outfall 9-1-05
20
_
6.7
31
4.6
1
0.1
North Side - UPS -1 Meter 090105
18.9
1.1
4
3.6
0
<0.9
North Side - UPS- Surface 090105
18.9
6.3
0
0.0
0
<0.2
North Side - DNS -1 Meter 090105
18.9
6.3
4
0.6
3
0.5
North Side - DNS - Surface 090105
18.9
6.3
19
3.0
4
0.6

 
Table 3-3b. Dry Weather
Indigenous
Cryptosporidium
Ooeysts and
Giardia
Cysts
in Samples
Collected at the Stickney
Waterway Segment
Sample Site
Sample Volume
Sample Volume
No. of Giardia Cysts
Detected in Volume
No. of Giardia
C t
No. of
Cryptospdridium
Oocysts Detected in Volume
No. of
Cryptospe idiom
Collected (L)
Analyzed (L)
O
t IL
Analyzed
ys
Analyzed
ocys s
Stickney - Ou#alf 7-27-05'
Stickney - UPS -1 Meter 727051
Stickney - UPS- Surface 72705'
Stickney - DNS -1 Meter 72705'
-
-
_Stickney
- DNS - Surface 72705
18.9
6.3
4
0.6
0
<0.2
Stickney - Outfall 8-1-05
18.9
6.3
5
0.8
0
<0.2
Stickney -UPS -1 Meter 8105
18.9
6.3
0
<0.2
0
<0.2
Stickney - UPS- Surface 81€15
18.9
63
0
<0.2
0
<0.2
Stickney - DNS -1 Meter 8105
18.9
6.3
0
<0.2
0
<0.2
Stickney
DNS - Surface 8105
18.9
6.3
1
0.2
0
<0.2
Stickney - Outfall 8-3-05
20
6.7
01
1
0.1
Stickney - UPS -1 Meter 80305
18.9
6.3
2
0.3
0
<0.2
Stickney - UPS- Surface 80305
18,9
6.3
0
<0.2
0
<0.2
Stickney - DNS -1 Meter 80305
18.9
6.3
3
0.5
0
<0.2
Stickney - DNS - Surface 80305
18.9
- 6.3
1
0.2
0
<0.2
Stickney - Outfall8-17-05
20
6.7
3
0.4
0
<0.2
Stickney - UPS - t Meter 81705
18.9
6.3
0
<0.2
0
<0.2
Stickney - UPS- Surface 81705
18.9
6.3
1
0.2
0
<0.2
Stickney - DNS -1 Meter 81705
18.9
6.3
3
0.5
0
<0.2
Stickney - DNS - Surface 81705
18.9
6.3
0
<0.2
D
<0.2
Stickney- Outfall 8-24-05
20
6.7
33
4.9
4
0.6
Stickney - UPS -1 Meter 082405
18.9
9.4
1
0.1
D
<0.10
Stickney - UPS- Surface 082405
18.9
6.3
1
0.2
2
0.3
Stickney - DNS -1 Meter 082405
18.9
6.3
7
1.1
3
0.5
Stickne - DNS -- Surface 082405
18.9
6.3
7
1.1
1
0.2
Stickney - Outfall 8131105
20
6.7
5
0.7
1
0.1
Stickney - UPS -1 Meter 83105
18.9
6.3
0
<0-2
0
<0.2
Stickney - UPS- Surface 83105
18.9
6.3
1
0.2
0
<0.2
Stickney - DNS - 1 Meter 83105
18.9
6.3
1
0.2
0
<0.2
Stickney - DNS - Surface 83105
18.9
6.3
4
0.6
1
Q-2
1,
Samples were not analyzed because the corresponding bacteria samples were not delivered on time by UPS.

 
Table 3-3c. Dry W
eather Indigenous
Cryptosporidiurn
Qocysts and
Giardia
Cysts
in Samples
Collected
at the Calumet
Waterway
Segment
Sample Site
Sample Volume
Collected (L)
Sample Volume
Analyzed (L)
No. of Giardia Cysts
Detected in
Volume Analyzed
No. of
Giardia
Cysts/L
No.
of Cryptosporidium
Oocysts
Detected in
Volume Analyzed
No.
of
Cryptosporidium
Oocysts/L
Calumet - Outfall -7126/05
10
5
6
1.2
0
<0.2
Calumet - UPS -1 Meter 72605
10
3.3
0
<0.3
0
<0.3
Calumet - UPS- Surface 72605
10
3.3
0
<0.3
0
<0.3
Calumet - DNS -1 Meter 72605
10
3.3
2
0.6
0
<0.3
Calumet - DNS - Surface 72605
10
3.3
2
0.6
0
<0.3
Calumet - Ouffall 812105,
20
10.0
0
<a_ 1
0
<0.1
Calumet - UPS -1 Meter 8205'
18.9
6.3
0
<02
0
<0.2
Calumet - UPS- Surface 8205,
18.9
6.3
0
<0.2
0
<0.2
Calumet - DNS -1 Mete, 8205'
18.9
9.4
0
<0.
1
0
<0.1
Calumet - DNS - Surface 82051
18.9
9.4
0
<0.1
0
<0.1
Calumet - Outfall 8116/05
20
10.0
22
2.2
<0.1
Calumet - UPS -1 Meter 081605
18.9
9.4
0
<0.1
0
<0A
Calumet - UPS- Surface 081605
18.9
9.4
0
<0.1
0
<0.1
Calumet - DNS -1 Meter 081605
18.9
6.3
0
<02
0
<0.2
Calumet - DNS - Surface 081605
18.9
6.3
2
0.3
0
<0.2
Calumet - Outfali 8123/05
20
6.7
4
0.6
3
0.4
Calumet - UPS -1 Meter 82305
18.9
9.4
0
<0.1
0
<0.1
Calumet - UPS- Surface 82305
18.9
9.4
0
<0.1
0
<0.1
Calumet - DNS -1 Meter 82305
18.9
6.3
0
<0.2
1
0.2
Calumet - DNS - Surface 82305
18.9
6.3
0
<02
1
0.2
Calumet - Outfall 8130105
20
6.7
4
0.6
0
<0.2
Calumet - UPS - 1 Meter 83005
18.9
6,3
0
<0.2
0
<0.2
Calumet - UPS- Surface 83005
18.9
6.3
0
<0.2
3
0.5
Calumet - DNS -1 Meter 83005
18.9
6.3
3
0.5
3
0.5
Calumet - DNS - Surface 83005
18.9
6.3
0
<0.2
2
0.3
1,
One filter capsule and the temperature blank were received in the laboratory partially frozen. District was notified that samples should not be analyzed
especially since viability/infectivity assay would not yield useful information.

 
Table 3-3d. Wet Weather Indigenous
Cryptosporadium
4ocysts and
Giardia
Cysts in Samples Collected at the North Side
Waterway Segment
ample Site
Sample
Volume
Aliquot
ID
Total Sample
Volume
No. of Giardia
Cysts Detected
i
n
No. of
Giardia
No. of
Cryptosporidium
Oocysts Detected in
No. of
Cryptosporidium
Collected
M
(Volume in L)
Analyzed
Volume Analyzed
Cysts&
Volume Analyzed
OorySts tL
North Side-UPS-M-102-062606
18.9
NA'
6.3
34
5
.
4
0
< 0,2
North Side-DNS-WW-36 - 062606
18.9
A (3
.
15)
6,3
145
46.0
3
1.0
B (3.15)
156
49.5
4
1.3
North Side -DNS-V,tW-37 - 062606
18.9
A (3.15)
6.3
6
1
.
9
0
< 0,3
B (3.15)
20
6,3
4
1.3
North Side -DNS-WW-37 - 062606 - MS
20.0
A (1.33)
6.7
7
53
1
0.8
B (1.33)
60
45.1
3
2.3
C (1.33)
38
28.6
2
1.5
D (1.33)
52
39.1
2
1.6
E (1.33)
65
48.9
4
3.0
North Side - DNS
-
VVW-73-062606
18.9
NAI
6
3
72
11.4
3
0.5
North Side
-
DNS-WW
-
39-062606
18.9
NA
'
6.3
10
1
.
6
3
0.5
North Side - UPS
-
WW-102- 080306
18.9
NA
'
6.3
11
1
.
7
0
<0.2
North Side - DNS
-
WW-36 - 080306
13.9
NA'
6.3
31
4.9
1
0.2
North Side-DNS
-
WW-37 - 0$0306
18.9
NA
'
3.15 (A)
5
1.6
2
0.6
3.15 (B)
16
5
.
1
0
<0.3
North Side
-
DNS-WW-73 _ 080306
18.9
NA'
6.3
31
4.9
1
0.2
North Side - DNS
-
WW-39.080306
18.9
NA
'
6.3
48
7
.
6
14
1.6
North Side-UPS
-
WW-102-092306
18.9
NA-
6
.3
7
1.1
7
1.1
North Side-DNS
-
WW-36
-
092306
1 B
.
9
6.3
24
3.8
4
0.6
North Side -DNS
-
WW-37 - 092306
18.9
A (3
.
15)
6.3
0
<0.3
0
<0.3
S (3.15)
2
0.6
0
<0.3
Norlh Side - DNS
-
WW-73-092306
18.9
A (3
.
15)
63
1
0
.
3
0
<0.3
B (3.15)
2
0.6
0
<0.3
North Side -
-
DNS-WW
-
39-092306
18.9
A (3-15
)
6.3
4
1.3
3
1.0
B (3.15)
4
1.3
4
1.3
North Side - Gutfall
-
092306
20
A (3.3)
6
.
6
3
0.9
1
0.3
B (3.3)
1
0.3
2
0.6
t.
Not applicable. Entire sample was analyzed in one aliquot.

 
Table 3-3e. Wet Weather
Indigenous
Cr'ypt©
spot dium,
Oocysts and
Giardia
Cysts in Samples Collected
at the Stickney
Waterway
Segment
ample Site
Samp
le
Volume
Aliquot
ID
Total Sample
Vo
lume
No. of Giardia
Cysts Detected in
No. of
Giardia
No. of
Cryptosporidium
Oocysis Detected in
No. of
Cryptosporidium
Collected
(L)
(Volume in L)
Analyzed
Volume Analyzed
CystsFL
Volume Analyzed
Oocysts lL
Stickney - UPS-WW-40-061006
18.9
NA1
6.3
0
<0.2
0
<0.2
Stickney - UPS - WW-75-061006
18.9
NA1
6.3
7
1.1
1
0.2
Stickney - RAPS - 061006
18.9
NA'
6.3
10
1.6
0
<0.2
Stickney - RAPS - MS- 061006'
NM
NA1
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Stickney - DNS -WW- 41-061006
18.9
NA1
6.3
14
2.2
0
<02
Stickney - DNS-WW-42-061006
18.9
NA1
6.3
4
0.6
1
0.2
Stickney - UPS-WW-40-080306
18.9
NA1
6.3
8
1.3
5
0.8
Stickney - UPS - WW-75-080306
18.9
NA1
63
16
2.5
3
0.5
Stickney, - RAPS - 080306
22.61
NA
1
3.8
4
1.0
1
0.3
Stickney - RAPS - MS- 080306
12.0
NA1
1.0 (A)
7
7.0
3
3.0
NA1
1.0 (B)
30
30.0
25
25.0
NA1
1.0 (C)
32
32.0
10
10.0
NA1
1.0 (D)
53
53.0
9
9,0
Stickney - DNS
WW- 41-080306
18.9
NA1
6.3
11
1.7
3
0.5
Stickney - DNS-WW-42-080306
18.9
NA1
6.3
4
0.6
2
0.3
Stickney - UPS-WW-40-101106
18.9
NA1
6.3
7
1.1
1
02
Stickney-- UPS- WW-75-101106
18.9
NA1
63
1
0.2
0
<0.2
Stickney - RAPS -101106
18.9
NA1
63
13
2.1
4
0.6
Stickney - DNS -WW- 41-101106
18.9
NA
1
6.3
15
2.4
5
0.8
Stickney - DNS-WW-42-101106
18.9
NA'
6.3
6
1.0
0
<0.2
Stickney - Outfall -101106
20.0
NA`
6.7
36
5.4
4
0.6
1. Not applicable. Entire sample ivas analyzed in one aliquot
2.
Matrix spike was not analyzed due to insufficient volume collected.

 
Table 3-3f. Wet Weather
Indigenous
Cryptosporidium
Oocysts and
Giarrdia
Cysts in Samples Collected at the Calumet
Waterway Segment
amp
le Site
Sample
Volume
Aliquot
ID
Total Sample
Volume
No. of Giardia
Cysts Detected in
No. of
Giardia
No. of Cryptosporidium
Oocysts Detected in
No, of
Cryptosporidium
Collected
(L)
(Volume in L)
Analyzed
Volume Analyzed
Cysts.I.
Volume Analyzed
Oocysts
I
Calumet Outfall -082406
20
NA1
3.35 (A)
6
1.8
1
0.3
NA1
3.35 (B)
1
0.3
0
<0.3
Calumet - U PS-WW56-082406
18.9
NA1
6.3
0
<0.2
0
<0.2
Calumet - DNS-WW76-082406
18.9
NA1
6.3
0
<0.2
0
<0.2
Calumet - DNS-WW58-082406
18.9
NA1
3.15(A)
1
0.3
0
<0.3
NA1
3.15 (B)
0
<0.3
1
0.3
Calumet- DNS-WW59-082406
18.9
NA1
3.15 (A)
0
<0.3
0
<0.3
NA1
3.15 (B)
0
<0.3
0
<0.3
Calumet - DNS-WW43-08240£
18.9
NA1
315 (A)
0
<0.3
0
<0.3
NA1
3.15 (B)
0
<0.3
0
<0.3
Calumet Outfall -082906
20
NA1
2.23 (A)
7
3.1
6
2.7
NA1
2.23 (B)
19
8.5
14
6.3
NA1
2.23(C)
14
6.3
10
4.5
Calumet - U€'S-WW56-082906
18.9
NA1
3.15 (A)
0
<0.3
0
<0.3
NA1
3.15 (B)
0
<0.3
0
<0.3
Calumet - DNS-WW76-082906
18.9
NA1
6.3
0
<0.2
0
<0.2
Calumet - DNS-WW58-082906
18.9
NA1
1.05 (A)
0
<1-0
1
1.0
NA1
1.05 (B)
0
<1,0
0
NA1
1.05 (C)
0
<1.0
3
2.9
NA1
1.05 (D)
0
<1.0
0
<1.0
NA1
1.05 (E)
0
<1-0
0
<1.0
NA1
1.05 (F)
0
<1.0
0
<1.0

 
Table 3-3f. Wet Feather
Indigenous
Cryptospo6*um
Oocysts and
Giardia
Cysts in Samples Collected at the Calumet
Waterway Segment (Continued)
ample Sfte
Sample
Volume
Aliquot
ID
Total Sample
Volume
No
.
of Ciardia
Cysts Detected in
No. of
Giardia
No. of Cryptosporidium
Oocysts Detected in
No, of
Crypfosporidium
Collected
(L)
(Volume
i
n L)
Analyzed
Volume Analyzed
Cysts/L
Volume Analyzed
Oocysts/IL
Calumet - DNS
-
WW59-082906
18,9
NA1
1
.
05 (A)
0
<1.0
0
<1.0
NA1
1.05 (i3)
0
<1.0
0
<1.0
NA1
1.05 (C)
0
<1,0
0
<1.0
NA1
1.05 (D)
0
<1.0
0
<1.0
NA1
1.05 (E)
0
<1.0
0
<1.0
NA1
1.05 (F)
0
<1.0
0
<1.0
Calumet - DNS
-
WW43-082906
?8.9
NA1
NA1
3
.
15 (A)
0
<0.3
2
0.6
NA1
3.15 (B)
0
<0.3
2
0.6
Calumet Outfall
-
101706
_
20
NA1
0.8 (A)
2
2.5
0
<1.2
NA1
0.8 (B)
2
2.6
0
<1.2
Calumet - IMPS-WW56
-
101706
18,9
NA1
1.6 (A)
0
<0.6
0
<0.6
NA1
1.6 (B)
0
<0.6
0
<0.6
Calumet - DNS
-
WW76-101706
18.9
NA1
6.3
3
0.5
2
0.3
Calumet - DNS
-
WW58-101706
18.9
NA1
1.6(A)
0
<0.6
2
1,2
NA1
1.6 (B)
0
<0.6
0
<0.6
Calumet - DNS
-
WW59-101706
18.9
NA1
3
.
15 (A)
0
<0.3
0
<0.3
NA1
3.15 (B)
1
0.3
1
0.3
Calumet - DNS
-
WW43-101706
18.9
NA'
3.15 (A)
1
0.3
1
0.3
NA1
3.15 (B)
0
<0.3
0
<
0.3
1-
Not applicable. Entire sample was analyzed in one aliquot.

 
Table 3-4a. Dry Weather Viability
Results
of Giardia
Cysts
Using Fluorogenic
Dyes in Samples Collected at the North
Side Waterway
Segment
Sample ID
Volume
Viable Cysts
Non-viable Cysts
Totals
Analyzed (L)
DAPI+
DAPI-
j
DAPI+
DAPI-Poor
DAPI+{PI+
Empty
Viable
Non-viable
Good
Good
j
Poor
North Side - Outfall
7128105
6.7
0
2
0
0
2
1
2
3
North Side -UPS
-1 Meter
72805
6.3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
North Side - UPS- Surface 72805
6.3
0
0
0
3
0
5
0
8
North Side - DNS -1 Meter 72805
6.3
0
1
0
4
0
1
1
5
North Side - DNS - Surface 72805
6.3
0
2
I
0
2
1
0
1
3
North Side - Outtall 8-4-05
6.7
4
1
!
1
4
1
1
5
7
North Side - UPS - 1 Meter 80405
4.7
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
3
North Side - UPS- Surface 80405
4.7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
North Side - DNS -1 Meter 80405
6.3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
North Side - DNS - Surface 80405
6.3
1
0
0
0
3
0
1
^
3
North Side - Outfall 8-18-05
6.7
4
13
0
1
13
2
17
16
North Side - UPS -1 Meter 81805
1.2
0
0
i
0
0
0
0
0
0
North Side - UPS- Surface 81805
1.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
North Side -DNS -1 Meter 81805
4.7
0
5
0
0
1
2
5
3
North Side - DNS - Surface 81805
63
0
1
0
0
5
0
1
5
North Side - Outfall 8-25-05
6.7
1
12
0
3
3
13
7
North Side - UPS - i Meter 82505
1.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
North Side - UPS- Surface 82505
6.3
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
1
North Side - DNS -1 Meter 82505
3.2
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
North Side - DNS - Surface 82505
6.3
0
4
0
0
4
0
4
4
North Side - Outfall 9-1 -05
6.7
0
4
0
2
8
5
4
15
North Side - UPS -1 Meter 090105
1-0
0
0
0
0
1
7
0
8
North Side - UPS- Surface 090105
6.3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
North Side - DNS -1 Meter 090105
6.3
0
1
0
0
5
5
1
10
North Side - DNS - Surface 090105
63
0
0
0
0
8
5
11
0
13

 
Table 3-4b. Dry Weather Viability
Results of
Giardia
Cysts
Using Fluorogenic
Dyes
in Samples
Collected at the
Stickney Waterway Segment
Sample ID
Volume
Viable Cysts
No - iable Cysts
Totals
Analyzed
(b^
DAPI+
DAPI-
DAPf+
DAPI-
DAPJ+/Pf+
Empty
Viable
Non-viable
Good
Good
Poor
Poor
Stickney - DNS - Surface 72705
6.3
0
4
0
1
26
0
4
27
Stickney - Outfall 8-1-05
6.3
1
1
?
0
0
1
0
2
1
Stickney -UPS -1 Meter 8105
6.3
2
0
?
0
0
0
0
2
0
Stickney - UPS- Surface 8105
6.3
0
0
;
0
0
0
2
0
2
Stickney - DNS -1 Meter 8105
6.3
0
0
i
0
0
0
0
0
0
Stickney - DNS - Surface 8105
6.3
1
0
i
0
0
1
1
1
2
Stickney -- Out€all 8-3-05
6.7
0
0
i
0
0
0
0
0
0
Stickney - UPS -1 Meter 80305
6.3
0
0
i
0
1
1
2
0
4
Stickney - UPS- Surface 80305
6.3
0
0
i
0
2
0
1
0
3
Stickney - DNS -1 Meter 80305
6.3
3
0
1
1
4
0
3
6
Stickne - DNS - Surface 80305
6.3
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
Stickney-Outall 8-17-05
6.7
6
19
;
3
1
12
1
25
17
Stickney - UPS -1 Meter 81705
63
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
2
Stickney - UPS- Surface 81705
6.3
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
3
Stickney - DNS -1 Meter 81705
6.3
4
2
I
3
1
10
1
6
15
Stickne - DNS -- Surface 81705
6.3
1
1
0
0
13
_1
2
14
Stickney-Outfall8-24-05
6.7
6
10
1
0
13
0
16
14
Stickney - UPS -1 Meter 082405
4.7
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
3
Stickney - UPS- Surface 082405
6.3
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
3
Stickney - DNS - i Meter 082405
6.3
0
1
j
0
0
2
0
1
2
Stickne - DNS - Surface 082405
6.3
0
2
0
0
6
0
2
6
Stickney - Out=all 8131/05
6.7
0
1
j
0
0
10
4
1
14
Stickney - UPS -1 Meter 83105
6.3
0
0
0
0
3
7
0
10
Stickney - UPS- Surface 83105
6.3
0
0
!
0
0
1
1
0
2
Stickney - DNS -1 Meter 83105
6.3
0
1
;
0
0
1
2
1
3
Stickney - DNS - Surface 83105
63
0
0
0
0
4
6
0
10

 
Table 3-4c. Dry Weather Viability Results of
Giardia
Cysts Using Fluorogenic Dyes in Samples Collected at the
Calumet Waterway
Segment
Sample ID
....
Volume
..........--
Viable Cysts
Non-
viable Cysts
Total
Analyzed
DAPI+
DAPI-
DAPI+Poor
DAPI-
DAPI+/Pl+
Empty
Viable
Non-viable
Good
Good
Poor
Calumet - Outfall -7/26105
2.5
1
1
0
1
4
0
2
5
Calumet - UPS - 1 Meter 72605
3.3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Calumet - UPS- Surface 72605
3.3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Calumet - DNS -1 Meter 72605
3.3
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
Calumet - DNS - Surface 72605
3.3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Calumet - Outfall 812105'
5.0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
4
Calumet - UPS -1 Meter 8205'
63
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Calumet - UPS- Surface 8205'
6.3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Calumet - DNS -1 Meter 8205'
4.7
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
4
Calumet - DNS - Surface 82051
41
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Calumet -- Outfall 8116/05
5.0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
4
Calumet - UPS -1 Meter 081605
4.7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Calumet - UPS- Surface 081605
4.7
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
Calumet - DNS -1 Meter 081605
6.3
0
1
0
0
4
1
1
5
Calumet - DNS - Surface 081605
6.3
0
1
0
0
2
1
1
3
Calumet -Outfall8123/05
6.7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Calumet - UPS -1 Meter 82305
4.7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Calumet - UPS- Surface 82305
4.7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Calumet - DNS -1 Meter 82305
6.3
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
2
Calumet - DNS - Surface 82305
6.3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Calumet -Outfall8/30/05
6.7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Calumet - UPS -1 Meter 83005
6.3
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
Calumet - UPS- Surface 83005
6.3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Calumet - DNS -1 Meter 83005
6.3
0
1
0
0
1
1
1
2
Calumet - DNS - Surface 83005
6.3
0
0
0
0
4
2
0
6
Note:
1.
Samples in this shipment were received partially frozen and results must be interpreted with caution.

 
Table 3-4d.
Wet Weather Viability Results
of Giardia
Cysts Using Fluorogenic Dyes in Samples Collected at the North Side
Waterway Segment
Sample ID
Volume
Viable Cysts
Non-viable Cysts
(
Tolals
Analyzed
i
fib)
DAPI-
Good
DAPI-
Good
DAPI+
Poor
DAPI-
Poor
DAPI+IPI+
Empty
Viable
Nonviable
North Side-UPS-WW-102-062606
6.3
1
10
0
0
4
0
11
4
North Side-DNS-WW-36 - 062606
3.15
0
14
2
2
49
0
14
53
3.15
1
15
1
3
46
0
16
50
North Side -DNS-WW-37 - 062606
3.15
0
3
0
1
6
0
3
7
3.15
0
1
0
1
4
1
1
6
North Side -DNS-WW-37 - 062606 -
MS
1.33
2
21
0
4
23
1
23
28
1.33
0
4
0
6
18
0
4
24
1.33
1
14
0
6
27
0
i5
33
1.33
2
13
0
10
14
0
15
24
1.33
0
14
3
12
19
0
14
34
North Side - DNS-WW-73-062606
6.3
2
29
0
3
15
0
31
18
North Side -DNS-WW-39-062606
6.3
1
10
0
3
8
0
11
11
North Side -UPS-WW-102 -080306
6.3
11
5
0
5
19
0
16
24
North Side -DNS-WW 36 - 080306
6.3
7
15
2
0
13
25
22
40
North Side -f3NS-WW 37 - 080306
3.15
0
10
0
0
4
11
10
15
3.15
0
14
0
0
2
3
14
5
North Side -IONS-WW 73 - 080306
6.3
6
is
2
0
12
19
21
33
North Side --DNS-WW 39 - 080306
6-3
3
5
0
0
3
0
8
3
North Side-UPS-WVV-102.092306
6.3
5
0
1
1
11
0
5
i3
North Side-DNS-WW-36 - 092306
6.3
7
17
2
0
1
0
24
3
North Side -DNS-WW-37 - 092306
3.15
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
3-15
ND1
ND1
NDI
ND,
NDI
NDI
N01
ND?
North Side -- DNS-M-73-092306
3.15
ND1
NDI
NDI
NDI
ND1
NDI
NDI
ND1
3.15
NDI
ND1
NDI
ND`
NDI
NDI
NDI
NDI
North Side -DNS-WW-39.092306
3.15
1
1
0
0
0
0
2
0
3.15
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
North Side - Outtall - 092306
3.3
1
1
0
0
2
0
I
2
2
3.3
0
1
0
1
1
0
1
2
Note:
1.
ND = No cysts detected in the portion of samples analyzed.

 
Table 3.4e. Wet Weather Viability Results of
Giardia
Cysts Using Fluorogenic Dyes in Samples Collected at the Stickney Waterway
Segment
Sample ID
Volume
Viable Cysts
Non-viable Cysts
Totals
Analyzed (t)
DAPI+
Good
DAPI-
Good
DAPI+
Poor
DAPI-
Poor
DAPI+IPI+
Empty
Viable
Non-viable
Stickney - €;:PS-WW-40-061006
63
NDT
ND1
ND1
ND1
NDI
ND1
NDE
NDT
Stickney - UPS - WW-75-061006
6.3
1
3
0
1
3
0
4
4
Stickney - RAPS - 061006
6.3
7
22
1
2
18
0
29
21
Stickney - DNS -WV4- 41.061006
6.3
3
20
0
1
6
0
23
7
Stickney - DNS-WW-42-061006
6.3
1
1
0
0
1
0
2
1
Stickney - UPS - WW-40-080306
6.3
4
10
0
0
10
0
14
10
Stickney - UPS - WW-75-080306
6.3
10
8
0
0
27
0
18
27
Stickney - RAPS - 080306
3.7
2
8
2
1
17
0
10
20
Stickney - RAPS - NIS - 080306
1.0
1
6
1
13
7
0
7
21
1.0
1
4
0
4
5
1
5
10
1.0
2
7
0
6
4
3
9
13
1.0
3
12
1
2
13
0
15
16
Stickney - DNS -WW- 41-080306
6.3
8
8
0
0
9
0
16
9
Stickney - DNS-WW-42- 080306
6.3
2
3
1
0
6
0
5
7
Stickney - UPS-WW-40-101106
6.3
0
1
0
1
0
1
1
2
Stickney - UPS - WW-75-101106
6.3
3
2
0
1
10
1
5
12
Stickney - FLAPS - 101106
6.3
3
6
0
3
20
0
9
23
Stickney - DNS -WW- 41-101106
6.3
2
5
2
0
18
0
7
20
Stickney- DNS-WW-42-101106
6.3
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
Stickney-Gotfall-101106
6.7
7
4
0
0
10
1
11
11
Note:
1.
ND = No cysts detected in the portion of samples analyzed.

 
Table 3-4f. Wet Weather Viability Results of
Giardia
Cysts Using Flaorogenic Dyes in Samples Collected at the Calumet
Waterway Segment.
Sample ID
Volume
Analyzed (L)
Viable Cysts
Non-viable Cysts
DAPI+
Good
DAPI-
Good
DAPI+
Poor
DAPI-
Poor
DAPI+IPI+
Empty
Calumet - Outfall Composite -082406
3.35
0
0
1
0
2
1
3.35
0
1
0
fl
1
1
Calumet - UPS- WW 56 - 082406
6.3
ND1
NDI
NDI
ND
I
NDI
NDI
Calumet- DNS - WW 76-082406
6.3
0
1
0
0
2
0
Calumet - DNS - WW 58 - 082406
3.15
0
1
0
0
2
0
3.15
0
0
0
0
1
0
Calumet - DNS - WW 59 - 082406
3.15
1
0
0
0
1
0
3.15
ND`
ND1
NDI
ND
I
NDI
NDI
Calumet -- DNS - WW 43 - 082406
3.15
NDI
ND`
ND1
ND1
ND1
NDI
3.15
0
0
0
0
0
2
Calumet -- Outfall Composite -082906
2.23
1
0
0
0
2
3
2.23
0
0
1
1
3
3
2.23
0
0
0
0
2
3
Calumet - UPS- WW 56 - 082906
3.15
ND`
ND1
ND
I
NDI
NDI
NDI
3.15
ND I
NDI
N101
NDI
ND1
NP
Calumet - DNS - WW 76-082906
6.3
1
1
0
0
18
0
Calumet- DNS - WW 58 - 082906
1.05 (A)
NO '
ND1
NDI
ND'
NDI
NDI
1.05 (B)
0
0
0
0
2
0
1.05 (C)
NDI
NDI
NDI
ND1
ND1
NDI
1.05 (D)
0
0
0
0
3
0
1.05 (E)
0
0
0
0
2
0
1.05 (F)
0
0
0
0
1
0
Calumet -- DNS - WW 59 -- 082906
1.05 (A)
NDI
NDI
NDI
ND1
NDI
NDI
1.05 (S)
NO
'
ND1
NDI
ND1
ND1
ND!
1.05 (C)
ND1
NDI
NDI
NDI
NDI
NP
1.05 (D)
ND1
NDI
ND
I
NDI
NDI
NDI
1.05 (E)
ND
I
NDI
NDI
ND1
ND1
NDI
1.05 (F)
ND
'
NDI
ND
I
NDI
NDI
NDI
Calumet - DNS - WW 43 - 082906
3.15 (A)
0
0
0
0
2
0
3.15 (B)
NDI
NDI
NDI
NDI
NDI
ND'
Totals
Viable
Non-viable
2
NDI
2
2
1
1
ND1
NDI
2
15
08
05
ND1
NDI
ND1
NDI
2
18
ND'
ND1
02
NDI
ND1
03
02
01
ND
I
NDI
NDI
NDI
ND
I
NDI
NDI
NDI
ND'-
ND
I
NDI
NDI
02
NDI
NDI

 
Table 3-4f. '
met Weather
Viability
Results of
Giarclia
Cysts Using Fluorogenic
Dyes in Samples Collected at the Calumet
Waterway Segment
(Continued)
Sample ID
Volume
Analyzed (L)
Viable Cysts
Non-viable Cysts
Totals
DAPI+
Good
DAPI-
Good
DAPI+
Pryor
DAPI-
Poor
DAPI+
PI+
Empty
Viable
Non-viable
Calumet - Outlall Composite -101706
0.8
NDI
ND'
NDI
NDI
NDI
NO1
NDI
ND1
0.8
ND1
NDI
NDI
NDI
NDI
NO1
ND'
NDI
Calumet - UPS- WW 561 -101706
1.6
ND'
ND1
NDI
ND'
ND`
NDI
NDI
NDI
1.6
ND1
ND1
ND'
ND'
ND`
ND'
NDI
ND1
Calumet - DNS - WW 76-101706
6.3
5
0
1
0
8
1
5
10
Calumet -- DNS w- WW 58 -101706
1.6
D
0
0
1
1
0
0
2
1.6
00
0
0
1
0
{^
1
Calumet - DNS - WW 59 -101706
3.15
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
2
3.15
NDI
NDI
NDI
NDI
ND'
NDI
ND'
ND1
Calumet - DNS WW 43 -101706
3.15
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
3.15
00
0
1
0
0
0
1
Note:
1. ND = No cysts
detected in the portion of
samples analyzed.

 
Table 3-5a. Summary of the North Side Dry Weather Enteric Virus
Results
Enteric Virus
UPS-1Meter
UPS-Surface
DNS-1Meter
DNS-Surface
Outfall
North Side-
7
2805
<1 MPN/TOOL
<1 MPN/IOOL
<1MPN/TOOL
<1 MPN/IOOL
<1.17/IOOL
North Side
-
80405
<1 MPN/100L
<1. MPN/IDOL
<IMPN/I00L
<1 MPN/IOOL
1.72/100L
North Side-81805
<1 MPN/TOOL
<1 MPN/IDOL
327 MPN/IOOL
2.12 MPN/TOOL
<1.28/100L
North Side-82505
3.25 MPN/IOOL
1.04 MPN/IDOL
8.72 MPNII00L
16.07 MPN/IDOL
24.73/100L
North Side-90105
<1 MPN/TOOL
<1 MPN/IDOL
<1 MPN/IOOL
<1 MPN/IDOL
<1.23/100L

 
Table 3-5b. Summary of the Stickney Dry Weather Enteric Virus Results
Enteric Virus
UPS-Meter
UPS-Surface
1
DNS-1Meter
DNS-Surface
Outfall
Stickney
-
80105
<1 MPNIIOOL
<1 MPN/100L
<1MPN/IDOL
<1 MPNIIOOL
<2 MPN/TOOL
Stickne
y-
80305
<1 MPN/IDOL
<1 MPN/IDOL
<1MPN/TOOL
<1 MPN/100L
<1.19/1OOL
Stickney
-
81705
<1 MPN/TOOL
1.03 MPN/IDOL I
<IMPN/TOOL
1.02 MPN/IOOL
<1.27/100L
Stickney-82445
3.25 MPN/100L
2.13 MPN/1OOL ! 1.03 MPN/100L
1.03 MPN/100L
<1.3/100L
Stickney-83105
<1 MPN/10OL
<1 MPN/100L
<1 MPN/TOOL
<1 MPN/IDOL
<1.21/100L

 
Table 3-5c. Summary of the Calumet Dry Weather Enteric Virus Results
Enteric Virus
UPS
-
1Meter
UPS
-
Surface
DNS-1Meter
DNS-Surface
Outfall
Calumet
-
72605
<1 MPN/IOOL
<1 MPN/TOOL
<1MPN/TOOL
<1 MPN/TOOL
<1.27 MPN/10OL
Calumet
-
80205
<1 MPN/TOOL
<1 MPN/TOOL
<1MPN/100L
<1 MPN/TOOL
<1.28 MPNIIOOL
Calumet-8
1605
<1 MPN/IDOL
_
<1 MPN/IOOL
<1MPN/TOOL
<1 MPN/TOOL
1.28
MPN/1OOL
Calumet
-8
2305
<1 MPN/IOOL
<1 MPN/TOOL
1.04 MPN/TOOL
<1 MPN/100L
<1.20 MPN/100L
Calumet
-
83005
<1 MPN/IOOL
1.04 MPN/IDOL
<1 MPN/IDOL
<1 MPN/100L
<1.28 MPN/100L j

 
Table 3-5d. Summary of the North Side Wet Weather Enteric Virus Results
Enteric Virus
UPS-WW-102
DNS-WW-36
DNS-WW-37
DNS-WW-73
DNS-WW-
39
Outfall
North Side-62606
I MPNJIOOL
<1 MPN/IDOL
<1 MPNIIOOL
7 MPN/100L
4 MPNIIOOL
See Now 1
North Side-80306
I MPN/IDOL
<1 MPNII OOL
<1 MPNIIOOL
<1 MPN/100L
6 MP_V'/TOOL
See Note 1
North Side
-92306
12 MPN/TOOL
7 MPNIIOOL
I MPN/IDOL
12 MPNIIOOL
28 MPN/100L
I
MPN/100L
Note.
1,
Prior to 24 August 2006, the outfall location was not collected- All sampling events after 24 August 2006 included an outfall location.

 
Table 3-5e. Summary of the Stickney
Wet Weather
Enteric Virus Results
Enteric Virus
UPS-
WW-40
UPS-WW-
75
RAPS
I
DNS-WW-41
DNS-WNV-42
Outfall
Stickney-61006
<I MPN/IOOL
<1 MPN/100L
I
MPN/IDOL
I MPN/TOOL
2 MPNIIOOL
See Note I
Stickney
-84306
IO MPN/TOOL
28 MPNIIOOL
63 MPNI IOOL
9 MPN/IOOL
7 MPN III00L
See Note I
Stickney
-
101106
3 MPN/TOOL
2 MPN/IOOL #
6 MPN/TOOL
6 MPN/IOOL
6 MPNI1OOL
IO MPNIIOOL
Note:
1.
Prior to 24 August 2006, the outfall location was not collected. All sampling events after 24 August 2006 included an outfall location.

 
Table 3-5f
.
Summary of the Calumet Wet Weather Enteric Virus Results
Enteric Virus
UPS-V4'W-56
DNS-WW-76
DNS-WW-
58 i DNS-WW-59
DNS-WW-43
Outfall
Calumet-$2406
2 MPN/TOOL
1 MPN/100L
<1 MPN/100L
<1 MPN/10OL
<1 MPNIIOOL
<1 MPN/1OOL
Calumet-$2906
1
MPN/100L
5 MPN/100L
32 MPN/100L (
3 MPN/100L
85 MPN/10OL
1O MPNIIOOL
Calumet
-
101706
9 MPN/100L
10 MPN/100L
1S MPN/100L
7 MPN1100E
f MPN/IOOL
32 MPNI100L

 
Table 3-6
.
Dry Weather Cell Culture Assay and Adenovirus Results
Viras Sample Ill
Total Culturable Virus
Total
MIN/1001,
^PCR
Adenovirus
Confirmation
MPN/100L
P Passa
g
e
2" Passe a
Calutnct,,UPS-1 meter-72605
negative
negative
<1
nog
Calumet-UPS-surface-72605
ncgativc
negative
<1
neg
Calumet-DNS-I meter-72605
negative
positive
3.21
neg
neg
Calumet•.DNS-surface-72605
negative
positive
1.09
neg
neg
Calumet-Outfall-72605
negative
positive
7,52
pos
7.552
North Side;-UPS-lmeter-72805
negative
negative
<1
neg
North Side-UPS-surface-72805
negative
negative
<1
neg
North Side-DNS- I meter-72805
negative
positive
13.9
neg
neg
North Side,-DNS-surface-72805
negative
positive
18.4
pas
18.4
North Side-Out fall .,72905
.-Positive
135
pos
135
Stickney-UPS-Imcter-80105
negative
positive
108
neg:
neg
Stickney-UPS-surface-80105
negative
positive
117
pos
117
Stickney-DNS-I meter-80105
negative
positive
112
pos
112
Stickney-DNS-surface-80105
negative
positive
110
pos
110
S€ickney_ Qut fal 1-80105
n^atrve
^ o^'ve
7.99
pos
7.99
Calumet-UPS- I meter-80205
--
_
negative
positive
1,21
neg
neg
Calumet-UPS-surface-80205
negative
negative
<1
neg
Calumet-DNS-lmeter-80205
negative
negative
<1
neg
Calumet-DNS-surface- 80205
negative
negative
<1
neg
Calumet-Owfall- 80205
___nc ative _ asitive
12.E
neg
Stickney-UPS- surface-80305
negative
positive
3.6
neg
neg
Stickney-UPS- lmeter-80305
negative
positive
11
pos
II
Stickney-DNS- surface-80305
negative
positive
1.67
pos
1,67
Stickney-DNS- I meter-80305
negative
positive
6.22
pos
6,22
Stickney-Outfall-80305
negative
p
ositive
18
pos
18
North Side-UPS-surface-80405
negative
negative
<1
neg
North Side-UPS- 1 meter-80405
negative
negative
<1
neg
North Side-DNS- surface-80405
positive
positive
11.2
pos
11.2
North Side-DNS- 1 meter-80405
positive
positive
9.84
pos
9,84
North Side-Outfall-80405
^jLo^itive_
Tositive
256
(sS
256
Calumet-UPS-surface-81605
negative
negative
<l
neg
Calumet-UPS-lsncter-81605
negative
negative
<1
neg
Calumet-DNS-surface-81605
negative
negative
<1
nog
Calumet-DNS- lmeter- 81605
negative
positive:
1.31
pos
1,31
Calumet-Outfall- 81605
ne-ative
positive
3.21
Ac
nC
Stickney-UPS-surface-81705 µ
negative
negative
<1
neg
Stickney-UPS-I meter-81705
negative
negative
<1
neg.
Stickney-DNS-surface-81705
negative
positive:
1,72
pos
1.72
Stickney-DNS-I meter-81705
negative
negative
<I
neg
Sticknc -Outfall- 81705
negative
ne ativc
<1
neg -

 
Table 3-6. Dry Weather Cell Culture Assay and
Adenovirus Results-Continued
Virus Sample
ID
Total Cutturable Virus
Total
MIIN
/
TOOL
PCR
Confirmation
Adenovirus
MIIN/100L
I" Passage
2" Passage
North Side-UPS-surface-81805
^negative
negative
<1
Ilea
North Side-UPS,, Imcter-81805
negative
positive
1.5
pos
1.5
North Side-DNS-surface-81805
negative
positive
12.4
pos
12.4
North Side-DNS-I meter-
81805
negative
positive
10.8
pos
10.8
North Side-Outfall- 81805
negative
ne2ativc
<1
_
Calumet-UPS-surface-82305
negative
negative
<1
neg
Calumet-UPS- I meter-82305
negative
negative
<1
neg
Calunnet-DNS-surface-82305
negative
positive
3.35
pos
3.35
Calumet-DNS- Imeter- 82305
negative
positive
1,36
neg
neg
Calumet-Outfall- 82305
negative
positive
14.5
lieu
_
14.5
Stick ney-UPS-surface-82405
negative
negative
<1
neg
Stick ney-UPS-i€neter-82405
negative
negative
<1
neg
Stickney-DNS-surface-82405
negative
positive
7.4
neg
neg
Stickney-DNS- Imeter- 82405
positive
positive
28.7
pos
28.7
Stickney-Outfall- 82405
positive
positive
36.9
pos
36.9
North Sidc-UPS-surface-82505
negative
positive
2,94
pos
2,94
North Side-UPS-I meter-82505
negative
negative
<1
neg
North Side-DNS-surface-82505
negativcfl''
positive
5.03
pos
5.03
North Side-DNS-Irneter-
82505
positive
positive
27A
pos
27.6
North Sicle-Outfall- 82505
negative
positive
45.1
pos
45.1
Caluntet-UPS-surface-83005
negative
negative
<1
neg
Calumet-UPS- l meter-83005
negative
negative
<1
neg
Calumet-DNS-surface-83005
negative
positive
6.24
neg
neg
Calumet-DNS-i meter- 83005
negative
positive
3.05
pos
3.05
Caluntet-Outfall- 83005
negative
positive
15.5
Pas
.^
15.5
Stickney-UPS-surface-83105
negative
negative
<I
neg
Stickney-UPS-Imeter-83105
negative
negative
<I
neg
Stickney-13NS-surface-83105
negative
positive
1.39
pos
1.39
Stickney-DNS-I meter- 83105
negative
negative
<1
neg
Stickney-Outfall- 83105
negative
positive
8,38
pos
8.38
North Sidc-UPS-lrneter-90]05
negative
ne;ative
<1
neg
North SWe-UPS-surface-90105
negative
neaat.ivc
<I
neg
North Side-DNS-1 meter-90105
negative
negative
<I
neg
North Side-DNS- surface-
90105
negative
negative
<I
flog
North Side-Outfall- 90105
negative
negative _
<1
neg
Note:
I,
Of 75 dry samples, 42 demonstrated the presence of detectable virus in the PCL/PRF/S cell line.
Adenoviruses we confirmed only in 31 of the 42 samples by PCR. Enteroviruses or other enteric
viruses were probably responsible for the observed CPE in the other samples of, the CPL' of other
viruses could have masked the presence of adenoviruses.
2.
Sample concentrate toxic to cells; entire content of flask frozen and re-assayed. 'T'oxicity was not the
result of virus in the sample,
3.
neg = negative
Pos = positive

 
Table 3-7. Dry Weather Norovirus
(Calicivirus)
Results
Virus Sample YD
Results
Viral
concentration
E
quivalent
volume assayed
Viral concentration
(positive/ne
8ative)
(1?CR results)
liters
MPN PCR units/ 100
liters
Calumet-UPS-Imeter-72605
negative
-
0.24
Ca lu tnet-UPS -su rface-72605
negative
-
0.24
Calumet-DNS-Imeter-72605
negative
-
0.23
Calumet-DNS-surface-72605
negative
-
0.26
Calumet-Outfall-72605
ne ative
0.09
North Side-UPS- I teeter-72805
negative
0.20
North Side-UPS-surface-72805
negative
-
0.18
North Side-DNS- I meter-72805
negative
-
0.19
North Side-DNS-surface-72805
negative
-
0.20
_North_Side-O_utfall-72805
negative
-
0.08
Stickney-UPS- I meter-80105
negative
0.24
Stickney-UPS-surface-80105
negative
-
0.23
Stickney-DNS-1 ntetcr-80105
negative
0.23
Stickney-DNS-surface-80105
negative
-
0.23
Stick ne -Out fall-80105
negative
-
0.11
Calumet-UPS- I meter-80205
negati ve
-
0.28
Calumet-UPS-surface-80205
negative
-
0.23
Calumet-DNS-Imeter-80205
negative
-
0.23
Calumet-DNS-surface- 80205
negative
-
0.21
Calumet-Outfall- 80205
negative
-
0.10
Stickney-UPS- surface-80305
negative
-
0.20
Stickney-UPS- Imeter-80305
negative
-
0.20
Stickney-DNS- surface-80305
negative
-
0.20
Stickney-DNS- I meter-80305
negative
-
0.20
Stickney-0utfall-80305
negative
-
0.08
North Side-UPS-surface-80405
negative
-
0.21
North Side-UPS- Imeter-80405
negative
-
0.18
North Side-DNS- surface-80405
negative
-
0.23
North Side-DNS- Imeter-80405
negative
-
0.26
_North Side-Outfall-80405
positive
+
0.20
See Note 1
Calumet-UPS-surface-81605
negative
-
0.21
Calu net-UPS-Imeter-81605
negative
-
0.22
Calumet-DNS-surface-81605
negative
0.22
Calumet-DNS-ltneter- 81605
negative
-
0,23
Calumet-Outfall- 81605
positive
+
0.19
781
Stickney-UPS-surface-81705
positive
+
0.41
511
Stickney-UPS- I meter-81705
negative
-
0.27
Stickney-DNS-surface-81705
negative
-
0.19
Stickney-DNS-I meter- 81705
negative
-
012
Stickney-OutfalI- 81705
negative
-
0.10
Note.
I. The
Calicivirus
concentration at this location was estimated to be 35,000 MPN
/
PRC Units
/
100 liter. The greater concentration
of Calicivirus
observed in this sample compar
e
d to the other samples may be due to the fact that only two duplicates per
dilution in the MPN assay could be performed because of reassay difficulties
,
therefore reducing the precision of the analysis.
In addition
,
of the five norovirus samples with MPN assays
,
this sample was the only one that had a positive result in the
highest dilution.
The combination of these factors could have resulted in the relatively high MPN value of this sample.
Therefore
,
the high
Calicivirus
concentration in the subject sample
i
s likely and artifact of these factors and appears to be an
outlier,

 
Table 3-7. Dry Weather Nor
ovirus
(Calicivirus
)
Results (Continued)
Virus
Sample Till
Viral
Results
Concentration
Equivalent
Volume
Assayed
Viral
Concentration
(
ositive/ne =ative)
(PCR results
liters
MPN PCR
units/ 100
liters
North Side-UPS-surface-81805
negative
0,20
North Side-UPS- I meter-81805
negative
0.20
North Side-DNS-surface-81805
negative
0.21
North Side-DNS-1 meter- 81805
negative
0.20
North Side-Outfall- 81805
Calumet-UPS-surface-82305
negative
6,24
Calumet-UPS- I meter-82305
negative
0.27
Calumet-DNS-surface-82305
negative
-
0.22
Calumet-DNS- imeter- 82305
negative
-
0.22
Calumet-Outfall- 82305
rrc
alive
0.08
Stickney-UPS-surface-82105
negative
0.20
Stickney-UPS- I meter-82405
negative
0.21
Stiekney-DNS-surface-82405
Positive
+
0.42
176
Stickne y-DNS- I meter- 82405
negative
0.20
Stickney-Outfall- 82405
ne^;aliye_
0.10
North Side-UPS-surface-82505
negative
0.21
North Side-UPS- I mater-82505
negative
0.20
North Side-DNS-surface-82505
negative
0.21
North Side-DNS-1 meter- 82505
negative
0.21
North Side-Outfall- 82505
negative
OA8
Cal urnet-U PS-surface-83005
negative
0,22
Calumet-UPS-I meter-83005
netaiive
0.21
Calumet-DNS.-surface-83005
negative
2.17
Calujnct••DNS-- I meter- 83005
negative
0.28
_..-_... .
Calumet-Ow
................W.----..__.----fall-
83005
negative
.--.
0.10
Stickney-UPS-surface-83105
Positive
+
0.41.
181
Stickney-UPS- I ratter-83105
negative
0.€9
Stickney-DNS-surface-83105
negative
0.20
Stickney..DNS-I rneter- 83105
negative
0.21
Stiekney-Outfall- 83105
negative
0.09
North Side-UPS- I meter-90105
- negative
0.20
North Side-UPS-surface-90105
negative
0,21
North Side-DNS-Irneter-90105
negative
0,20
North Side-DNS-surface- 90105
negative
0.21
North Side-Outfall- 90105
negative
0.09

 
Table 3-8. Wet Weather Cell Culture Assay/Adenovirus and Norovirus
(Calicivirus)
Results
Virus Sample ID
Virus
Celll
C
Adenovirus
I
Norovirus PCR
re
--^..'_.....^.-.^^^....
1st 2nd
MPN11 OOL PCR
MPNl1 OOL
Result
MPN PCR
PCR eel.
volume
Pass Pass
Units/100L
assa ed L
Stickney-UPS-WW-40-061006
pas pas
661
pos
661
pas
1,150
0.37
Stickney-UPS-WW-75-061006
neg pos
4.46
neg
neg
neg
< 5.8
0.37
Stickney-RAPS•061006
neg pas
135
pos
135
pos
5,700
0.42
Stickney-DNS-WW-41-061006
pas
pas
615
pos
6.5
pas
1,930
0.39
Stickney-DNS-_WW-42-061006
_pos_pos ry
39.2
__pas
39.2
as
1,310
0,32
_
North Side- UPS-WW 102-062606
pas pas
2,890
pas
2,890
neg
<5.8
0.43
North Side- D N S-WW36-062 606
pas pos
2,770
pos
2,770
neg
<5.8
0.45
North Side-NBPS-WW37-062606
pos pos
148
pas
148
neg
<5.8
0.39
North Side- D N S-WW73-062 606
pos
pos
2,870
pas
2,870
neg
< 5.8
0.43
North Side-DNS-WW-39.062606_
Dos
dos .,__328
as
328
os
3,930
0.38
North Side- UPS-WW 102-080306
neg
pos
20.7
pas
20.7
neg
<5.8
0.40
North Side-DNS-WW-36.080306
neg pas
871
neg
necg
pas
149
0.42
North Side- NBPS-DNS-WW37-
080306
pas pos
66.7
pas
66.7
pas
99.1
0.36
North Side- D NS-WW 73-080306
pas
pos
974
pos
974
neg
< 5.8
0,25
North Side-DNS-WW-39-0080306_ _
pos
pos
332
os
332
os
243
0.38
Stickney-UPS-WW-40-080306
pas Pas
332
pos
332
neg
< 5.8
0.38
Stickney-UPS-WW-75-080306
pas pas
1,280
pas
1,280
neg
<5.8
0.45
Stickney-FLAPS-080346
pos
pas
1,560
pas
1,560
pos
2,590
0.36
Stickney-DNS-WW-41-080306
pas pas
57.4
pas
57.4
neg
< 5.8
0.42
SUckne -DNS-WW-42-080306
Pos Pas
1,180
as
1,180
as
74,2
0.48
Calumet-UPS
-
WW-56-082406
neg pos
54
.
1
neg
neg
neg
<5.8
0.44
Calumet-DNS
-
WW-76-082406
neg
pas
128
pos
128
neg
<
5.8
0.44
Calumet-DNS
-
WW-58
-
082406
neg
pas
28
.
9
pos
28.9
neg
< 5.8
0.44
Calumet
-
DNS-WW-59-082406
neg
pos
128
neg
neg
neg
<5.8
0.44
Calumet-DNS
-
WW-43
-
082406
nag
pos
8
.
77
neg
neg
neg
< 5.8
0.44
Calumet
-
0utfall-082408
_
_neg Pos
10.0
os
10,0
ne
<
5.8
0.19
Calumet-UPS-WW-56-082906
pos
pas
14.7
Pas
14.7
neg
< 5.8
0.39
Calumet-DNS-WW-76-082906
pas pas
548
pos
548
neg
< 5.8
0.44
Calumet-DNS-WW-58-082906
pas pas
344
pas
344
pas
85.3
0.36
Calumet-DNS-WW-59-082906
pos
pos
44.9
pas
44,9
neg
< 5.8
0.44
Calumet-DNS-WW-43-082906
PCs pas
X3,277
pas
X3,277
nog
< 5.8
0.38
Calumet-Cut#all-082906
ne _
as
117
2 5
117
Pos
651
0.19

 
Table 3-8. Wet Weather Cell Culture Assay/Adenovir•
us an
d Nolrovir•us
(Caliei.virus)
Results (Continued
Virus Sample ID
Virus
ellfe
Adenovirus
'
Norovirus PCR
Cul
1st 2nd
PCR eq.
MPN/ 100L PCR
MPN/1001
Result
MPN PCR
volume
Pass Pass
-
Units/1001L
assn ed 1.
North Side-UPS-WW102-092306
pos pas
115
neg
neg
neg
< 5.8
0.42
North Side-DNS-WW-38-092346
pos pos
110
pos
110
pas
393
0.44
North Side-NBPS-WW-37-092306
pos pos
199
pos
199
neg
< 5.8
0.45
North Side-DNS-WW-73-092306
pos pos
303
pos
303
pos
128
0.48
North Side-DNS-WW-39-092306
pos pos
105
pos
105
pos
66.9
0.53
North Side -Outlall 092306
neq_p2s^
121
os
121
nog
< 5.8
0.21
Stickney-UPS-WW-40-101106
pos pos
3.5
pos
3.5
neg
< 5.8
0.52
Stickney-UPS-WW-75-101106
pos pos
4.16
pos
4.16
pos
582
0.52
Stickney-RAPS-101106
pos
pos
49.7
pos
49.7
neg
< 5.8
0.51
StickneyDNS-WW-41-101106
pas pos
288
pos
288
pos
60
0.50
Stickney-DNS-WW-42-1 0 1 1 06
pos pos
4,37
pos
4.37
pos
783
0.49
Stickne Outfall101106
ne
os
1,308
Pos
11308
Pos
682
0,21
Calumet-UPS-WW-56-101706
neg
pas
3.06
neg
neg
neg
<5.8
0.60
Calurnet-DNS-WW-76-101706
pos pos
1,118
pos
1,118
neg
<5.8
0.59
Calumet-DNS-WW-58-101706
pos pos
271
pos
271
neg
< 5.8
0.53
Calumet-DNS-WW-59-101706
pos pos
6.24
pos
6.24
neg
< 5.8
0.60
Calumet-DNS-WW-43-101706
neg pos
21
neg
neg
neg
< 5.8
0160
Calumet-Outfall-101706
os
os
355
Pos
355
os
337
0,21
Note:
1.
All 50 wet weather samples demonstrated the presence of infectious viruses assay in the PC.APRrl5 cell line.
Adenoviruses were confirmed in 42 of the samples by PCR. Enteroviruses or other enteric viruses were
probably responsible for the observed CPl, in the other samples, or the CPE of the other viruses could have
masked the presence of adenoviruses.
2. The samples in bold print had severe toxicity problems in three of the six and inconsistent results on another
two.
The University of Arizona analyst believes that there was something in the sample that was probably
interfering with the virus replication, as well as causing enough toxicity to affect the cells ability to provide
reliable results. The MPN numbers were calculated with only two dilutions instead of three, and they were the
analysts best estimate based on the fact that we did not see any toxicity in the highest dilution. The fact that. this
sei was all negative for PCIZ supports this, as there was probably sonic interference here as well.
3.
pos = positive
4.
€icg = ncgativc

 
Table 3-9. Summary of Dry
Weather
Virus Detections
(%)
and Detectable Concentration Ranges
Ors.,
Nortb Side;.:
SticltrieY ,
lulmet
Enteric
8/25' (29`'70)'
6/25' (24%)2
3/25' (12%)'
Upstream3
1.04-3.25 MPNI100L
1.03.3.25 MPN/1 OOL
1.04 MPN/100L
Downstream)
2.12 -16.07 MPN/ 100L
1.02-1.03 MPN/ l OOL
1.04 MPN/ 1001-
Outfall3
1.72 - 24.73 MPN/1OOL
Not Detected
1.28 MPN/100L
A.dentovirus
12/25' (48%)'
13/25' (52%)2
6/25' (24%)'
Upstrea 3
15-2.94 MPN/100L
11-117 MPN/104L
Not Detected
Downstream.
5.03-27.6 MPN/104L
1.39-112 MPN1100L
1.31-3.35 MPN/100L
Outfa113
45.1-256 MPN/ 104L
7.99 -36.9 MPNI100L
7.52-15.5 MPN/100L
Norovirus
1/25' (4%)2
3/25' (12%)2.
1 /25 3 (4%)'
Upstream3
Not Detected
181-511PCR MPN/IDOL
Not Detected
Downstream
Not Detected
176 PCR MPN/TOOL
Not Detected
Outfall3
See Note 4
Not Detected.
781 PCR MPN/104L
Notes:
1.
The ratio represents the number of samples with detections of viruses over the total number of samples collected and analyzed
2.
The number in parentheses represents the percentage of samples with virus detections
3.
The detectable concentration ranges at each sampling location are shown
4,
The CaUrivirus concentration at this location was estimated to be 35,000 MPNfPCR Units/100 liter.
The greater concentration. of
Calicivirus
observed in this sample compared to the other samples may be due to the fact that only duplicates per dilution in the MPN assay
could be performed because of reassay difficulties, therefore reducing the precision of the analysis. In addition, of the five norovirus
samples with MPN assays, this sample was the only one that had a positive result in the highest dilution. The combination of these factors
could have resulted in the relatively high MPN value of this sample. 't'herefore, the high
Calicivirus
concentration in the subject sample is
likely and artifact of these factors and appears to be an outlier.

 
Table 3-1
0.
Surnmary
of Wet Weather Virus
Detections
(%)
and Detectable Concentration. Ranges
Virus
.North` Side
Stickhey
Calumet
Enteric
11/16'(69%7-
14/16'--(88%j?
14/18
' -('7'710)}
Upstrearrt3
1-12 MPN/ TOOL
2-28 MPN/100L
1-9 MPN/ 100L
Downstream 3
1-28 MPN/ 100E
1-9 MPN/100L
1-85 MPN/1 O0L
Outfal l3
1 MPNIIJOOL
1
0 MPN/1001.
10-32 MPN/TOOL
PSI
<1-1 MPN/TOOL
1-63 MPN/100L
Not Sampled5
Adenovirus
14/16'
(88%)'"
15/I6' (94%)2
13/181 (72%)2
Upstream,
20.7-2,890 MPNII OOL
3.5-1,280 MPN/I00L
14.7
MPN/TOOL
Downstream3
105-2,870 MPN/1001-
4.37-1,180 MPN/TOOL
6.24->3,277 MPN/TOOL
Outfall3
121 MPN/1001-
1,308 MPN/100L
10-355 MPN/100L
PS3.4
66.7- 199 MPN/100L
49.7-1,560 MPN/lOOL
Not Sampled
Norovirus
7/16' (44%)2
10/16'(63%)2
3/18' (17%)2
Upstreart33
Not Detected
582-1,150 PCR MPN/l OOL
Not Detected
Downstream
66.9-3,930 PCR MPN/10OL
66.9-1,930 PCR MPN/l OOL
85.3 PCR MPN/100L
Outfall-'
Not Detected
682 PCR MPN/ 1 OOL
337-651 PCR MPN/100L
PSI
99.1 PCR MPNI100L
2,590-5,700 PCR MPNIIOOL
Not Sampled 5
Notes:
1. The ratio represents the number of samples with detections of viruses over the total number of samples collected and analyzed
I The number in parentheses represents the percentage of samples with virus detections
3. The detectable concentration ranges at each sampling location are shown
4. Due to safety concerns, the discharge of the North Branch Pumping Station was sampled at the nearest downstream location: North Side-DNS-WW-37
5. The Calumet Pumping Station was not sampled, because historically it did not discharge during rain events

 
Table 3-11. Comparison of Percent (%) Virus Detections During Dry and Wet Weather
Virus
North Szde
^Stickney:;
Calumet :.
Enteric
Dry
8/25(29 %)
6/25(24%)
3/25(12
%)
Wet
11/16(69%)
14/16(88%)
14/18(77%)
Adenovirus
Dry
12/25 (48
17o)
13/25
(52%)
6/25(24 %)
Wet
14/16 (87.5%)
15/16(94%)
13/18(72%)
Norovirus
Dry
1/25(4
%)
3/25(12 %)
1/25(4
%)
Wet
7/16(44%)
10116(62.5%)
3/18(17%)

 
SECTION 3
FIGURES

 
Figure
3-1.
North Side Dry Weather
Bacteria Histograms
Enterococcus
7125:
005
4.1
:
005
!RS
': 75
•.'Ia•YCS
617.06
7:9
0
':G4Y.! .,2GC5
S'•7C05
l5.2:C'.
Ar:7G5
C. Golf
b,6.2
:
C9
825.'20:!
4'I•ro
177
': 17t);5
675.2005
d1d'S?'.S
8'f.'A.5
17.0)3
10
4
0
10
72! :475
1.50.097
1
.000.50
I:QO70
'o0 0:0
%CGO
100
A
7•:6'2X5
641::05
G
'Id•2M
S2.,=5
i,vXCS
7.75:075
Fecal Coliform
5s:005
3'+ X05
..`. -.J:S
515:X-1
-,1272!
8^'b'2]:!
-; 5:005
Ar::sS

 
Figure 3-2. Stickney Dry Weather
Bacteria Histograms
Enterococcus
1,OMOM
:MOW
:0000
S 1.000
3
103
i
10
•. "..75^
B-1=0$
•q)QQ6`
671
':
00'
! 31 _VS
1:X 007
9a.9oo f
n
suritoa
8 'C 000
t a 1 N%ttr
r
Y 1.000
9
loo
10
u
8'12775
1.771
W
C
E. Colf
3'}2.5
b170067
E'1+2L07
7.31(=
• ID ratut
;
a Mwrt Y6'W
63"00
'
b'f7f=
S
?
A2007 Nt=
7
5'r :_05
Fecal C oliform
3:GL5
3:iG5
N17`«'S
617,.,::!
1.=
Cw
I CCO C00
1W,:CA
'00000
'0.CCO
10.00]
r,0iG
1000
IM
19)
19
63':`7! 817=5 7:1^.003 L
']t•: :'
3'3,1{0]
1; II'M
t
uu
'4'
ai
t-24 :cos
e'dr-1^_'.7
!,]: IM
_ 31''w!

 
Figure 3.3. Calumet Dry Weather
Bacteria Histograms
r Scrrace
n
1 Stater
7':@4C05
EfItarococeus
G:...._
5 lf^ms
d2' :COS
u ?', ::.d
E. Cole
v.:62]:5
. v2J:S
,,"
t62.':C
3
'
2:•:OGi
3^^:'O5i
'._)75 6,11 2M SIS•_M
a-2M.-
?}1___'
Fecal C(liform
0
7:l .JJ:
_2N;5
1.000 _
_tl
t
:LG.003
1.00.000
t000:tl
n
:Surface
trA=
IC0.003
i
r 100=
I
K%tr
tO007
tAM
100)
1.0D]
•_p
10]
100
e
p
17
10
t
U
7 ^'__fi5
1'+G:C0
6252CC4
'^
O2J:5
1
12
t-dte5
L
^_ 4 BtS
,
Sfb
627HO5
P'
3: a
.
O5
72&2::`
_::p)5
i • t-:OSS
L3! !d
! 30 `:r_

 
Figure 3-4
. ANOVA
Results
:
Day Weather
E.
coli
{EQ-
vs Site, Location, Depth
Factor Typc^ Leve $ Value
Site
fixed
Calum^c, N,>^'tl^sade, stickney
Lc,cation faxed
_
DNS, WIS
septh
fixed
_ 1 Meter, Surface
M,i y.si6 9f Va-riance. fot D_
fir,
S
date
aC'1.'3'F'3
Dept
h
3 ite-(Depth
Site*Lccation*D;-Pth
Error
TUtal
NS
F
716
2
20 ^,- 7: c 3
10405765 Q.19
0.E=9
?O1
X1,00
0.998
r
42) 3375:?3
48
25929628H
utf l)r
^; L43
59
5 928 ^s1?G5$
7349.13
R
-Set = 56.'7
R-a1-1(acI4) =
46.25%
Nean :
Depth
1 ^.eter 30 62 B3.3
Surface 30
550^^. 3
Location
N
7.I_•
D1;S
30
111.77
SIPS
30
699
Maln Effects Plot (data means) for E. Call
Interaction Plot (data means) for Er Coll
La:atim
7500'1
25M I
t
0.
w%et '40. Wdes
U<dBsx
.ON"
VPS
A
a
I
7500
7500
'S1te
..Ur^
S h7.
Er
'S.f.c.
EucatlDn
o.oth
i Zm
I. Imm
Sitr
-0 Calumet
41 - tlorths,de
-41- SGdney
Locaton
-a - UPS
l l+klei
:urfm

 
Figure 3-5
. ANOVA
Results: Dry Weather
Fecal
coliform
(FQ - vs Site, Location,
Depth
Factor Type Levels Values
Site fixed
3 Calumet, North Side, Stickrey
Location fixed 2 DNS, UPS
Depth fixed 2 1.
meter, Surface
Analysis of Variance for FC
Source
DP
SS
MS
P
P
Site
2
310479364.3 1552396822
22.36
0.000
I.,ocati.on
1 '7115308202 7115308202 102.49 0.000
Depth
1 103097042 103097042 1.49 0.229
Site*Location
2 2567400603 1283'700002 18.49
Site*Depth
2 9'1949503 489747x2
0.71
0.499
Location*Depth
1
91637042 91.637042 1.32 0.256
Site*Location*Depth 2 135756543 67878272 0.98 0
Error
48
3332361920 6942420?
Total.
59
1.6548303890
S = 8332.12 R-Sq -= 79.86% R-Sq(adj) = 75.25%
means
Depth
N
FC
1
Meter. 30 10839
Surface 30 1.3461
Location N PC:
IONS
30
23040
UPS
30
1260
0.000
384
Main Effects Plot (data
means
) for Fecal Coliform
Interaction
Plot (data means) for Fecal Coliform
SAIe
MOO
Iww
5WO
0
Location
ON$
up$
sit.
site
-+•- G7^uaieS
--9 - Nortlwde
...1 ... S'."ey
uxaeno
...-0.•^ DNS
--z -• UPS
I
mter
5urram

 
Figure 3.6
.
ANOVA
Results
:
Dry Weather
En.teroeoccus
(
EN). vs Site
,
Location,
Depth
;'acc0r
_YP•
Levels, Valdes
Site
f .ed
3 Caiume-1, n l^ t ilswd
5t' awK+. cy
Lr,caLlon
-fixed
2 DNS, UFS
Depth
fixed
_ 1 Meter,
Surface
Analy '•is
;i=
Valiance
for
Em
. C..urce
D:
SS
mS
I;
1"
E;er_th
1
n3,a79
3 7 9
1.21-
O277
Si 'elL1c17
465794
23';97
1.21 £1.306
1
3G 6
2_3016
' . lr CI.2G.6
M
35c4?9
11Er'19
1I43'
4 c:
9211734
191 ^I
-I
Total
59 _3498241
S = 43£'.077
-Sx = 60,501s
Means
Depth
'LIZ
ENI
1 mete- 3
0
355.,30
Surface 30 211.33
Lo .a ran
K.
EH
DNIS
30 537.73
UPS
30 49.40
I
-ScI ladj f = "3 • z 13
Main Effects
Plot (data
weans) for EN
Site
450
Calumet
f Or ftOe Sti[krvy
site
^-+^-•
Glumpl
-^ - 1101ILsIJe
@ SlthTty
lpcetion
# DDS
-.M -- UPS
X.
450
300
150
Ms
Lcxation
UPS
rxlptfi
Location
.
Dep1b
interaction
p
lot (data means) for EN
Oa
T
I
1 MLA&
5".bce

 
Figure 3-7. ANOVA Results: Wet Weather E.
soli
(EQ -vs Site, Location
Factor Type
Levels values
sure
fixed
3 Calumet, Northside, Stickney
Location fixed
2 DNS, UPS
Analysis of Variance for EC-Result, using Adjusted SS for Tests
Source
DF
Seq SS
Adj SS
Adj MS
r
p
Site
2
1.74458E+11
1.42$68E+11
71434162422 6.90
0.003
Location
1 177795181.7
464805788 464805788 0.04
0.833
Sit:exLOCaCi.on 2
17788688654 11788688654 5894344327 0,57 0.570
Error
39 4.036121;+11 4.03612E+11 10349013607
Total
44 5.91636E+11
S = 1.01730
R-Sq = 3.1 . 7896
R-Sri (adj) = 23.03k
Main Effe
cts Plot (fitted me
ans
) f
or EC-Result
Interaction Plot (fitted
means)
for
EC
-
Result
Site
tocatiW
2D0000
S,^
160000-
uR,el
-
--$^ - NOrlh5E4C
'
^
..-,^ ._ S6dney
140000
i
,`
150000
,'
120000-
N 1£10000
m
V
R
100000
w 80000
0
a,
^ 60000
•r
50000-
400.00.-
..20000,
0
0
DNS
UPS
Calumet No4side Suclmey
DNS
UPS
Location

 
Figure 3-8. ANUVA
Results: Wet Weather Fecal
Coliform (FQ-vs Site,
Location
Factor Type Levels Values
Site
fixed
3
Calumet, Northside, Stickney
Location fixed
2 DNS, UPS
Analysis of V2-rianCe
for
PC-Result, using Adjusted SS for Tests
Source
DP
Seq SS
Adj SS
Adj MS
F
P
Site
2 1.90477E+13 1,228162+13 6.14080E+12
2.02 0.147
Location
1 3.72912E+12 2,23229E+12 2,23229E+12 0.73 0.397
Site*LocaLion
2 4.549'75E+1.2
4.549'7SE+12
2..27487E+1.2
0.75
0.480
Error
39 1.18731E+14 1.18731E+14 3.04438E+12
Total
44 1.46057E-1.14
S = 174481,5
R-8q = 1.8 . 71!^
R-Sq (adj ) W 8.29
Main Effects Plot (fitted
means
) for FC-Resuft
Site
1200000
Location
2000000
400000
20000D
Interaction
Plot (fitted
means
) for FC-Resutt
2000000
1500000-]
!
r
G
1000000,
500000{
0-
a°^^
hype
^^e-^
O^SS
JQ5
DNS
UPS
Locagon
Site
-!- calumet
••^^ ,- Northside
•- ^ -- SUCmey

 
Figure
3-9.
ANOVA
Results: Wet Weather
Enterococcus
(EN). vs Site
,
Location
Factor
Type Levels Values
Site
fixed
3
Calumet, Northside, Stickney
Location fixed
2
DNS, UPS
Analysis of Variance Ear EN-Result, using Adjusted SS for 'tests
Source
DF'
Seq SS
Adj SS
Adj MS
F
P
Site
2 21100315538 17315997821
8657998910
3.99 0.027
Location
1
343398722
86249900
86249900
0.04 0.643
Site*Location 2
2421177249 2421177249
1210588625 0.56 0.577
Error
39
84707916456
84707916456 2171997858
Total
44 1.08573E+ll
S = 46604.7
R-Sq = 21.985
R-So(adj) = 11.98t.
Main. Effects
Plot (fitted m
eans
)
for EI+Result
Interaction
Plot (fitted means) for
EN
-
Result
Site
Location
70000-
^^•
yQ
^ CaSUmCt
--^ - NorESiSide
^^
_..^- Svr^nay
60000 -
,
50000
50000
f
a 40000
40000
aM
wz
^
0
30000
e 30000
m
m
20000-
20000-
1 0000
1
DNS
UPS
caiumct Nr)4 sae 61,My
D) S
UP5
Location

 
Figure 3-1.0. ANOVA Results: Wet Weather
Pseudnrnonas aeraginosa
(PA)- vs Site,
Location
Factor.
Type
Levels Values
Site
fixed
3 Calumet, Nor.thside, Stirkney
Location fixed
2 DNS, UPS
Analysis of Variance for. PA-Result, using Adjusted SS for Tests
Source
UC
Seq SS
Adj SS
Adj i,5
P
P
Site
2 164289911 1323778254
661889127 3.15 0.054
Location
1
20243048
1950694
1950694
0.01 0.924
Site*l.,ocation
2
372838063 3'72838063 186419032
0.89 0.420
Frror
39
9203498889 8203498889 ?1.0346125
Total
44 10239479112
S = 14503.3 R-Sq = 19.89% P-Sq(adj) = 9.61.°%
Main Effects Plot (fitted m eans
)
for PA-Result
Interaction
Plot (fitted means
)
for.PA
-
Resait
Site
Location
.
25000
Site
zoaa^
--.-.
C.^lamet
-
--9- Narlhside
-• ^ - SO6'ImEY
//
17500
20000-
15000,
N
SS000
4
a
a^
a
Cu
,.
12500-
10000-
10000 ,
_ r
-
5ooa
it-
`
7500
fl
5000
DNS
UPS
Calumet
Norl Side Satsmey
DNS
UPS
l
.
OCatiort

 
Figu
re 3-11. ANOVA
Results
: Wet Weather
Salmonella
(SA)----vs Site,
Location
Factor.
Type Leve1S values
Site
faxed
3
Calumet, Northside, Sticicney
T,ocation fixed
2 DAIS, UPS
Analysis of Variance for SA-Result, using Adjusted SS for Tests
Source
DF
Seq SS Adj SS
Adj MS
F
F
Site
2
218.75
101.99
so.99 0.8'7 0.426
Location
1
5.16
3.70
3.70 0.06 0.803
Site*Location 2 65.37
65.37 32.69 0.56 0.577
Error
39
2283.06 2283.06
58.54
't'otal
44 2572.34
S = 7. 65114
R-Sq = 11 .25si
R-Sq (adj)
0,00%
Main Effects Plot (fitted
means
)
for SA-Result
Interaction
Plot (fitted means
)
for
5A-Result
Site
Location
9
Site
7
+-- Caiun+et
.
•.3d •- NOrlhsid@
--4-• Sidney
8
ry
i
rA
4'
5
C
c
w 4
4-
3
l
2-
DNS
UPS
Calumet Natl,i& Stick-Y
DNS
UPS
Location

 
Figure 3.12. ANOVA
Results:
Dry and Wet Weather
E. coli
(EQ vs Site,
Location,
Weather
Factor Type Levels
values
Site
fixed
3
Caluinet, Northside, Stickney
Location fixed
2 DNS, UPS
weather,
fixed
2
Dry, Wet
Analysis of Variance for EC-Result, using Adjusted. SS for 'bests
"ounce
DF
Seq SS
Site
2 770399181 73
Location
1
50816 66
Weather
1 1.09478E+ 11
Site*Location
2 28850456 18
SiCe*Weather
2 973081669
73
Location*Weather
1 26878536 62
Site*Location*Weathei
2
81889192
92
Error
93 4.OG275E+ 11
Total.
103
7.04167E+
11
Adj SS
Adj MS
F
P
90650182856
4532
5091428 10.38 0.000
44432364
4
4432364
0.01
0.920
73586212295 7358 623.?,295
16.84 0.000
6643241215 332
1620607 0,76
0.470
86712312287 4335
63.567.43 9.92
0.000
171493'7"7'79
3'71
4937779
0.39
0.532
8488919292 424
4459646
0.97
0.382
4.06275E.t.11 436 8543529
S = 66095.0
R-8q = 42.30%
R--Sq?adj) = 35.48$
r---Main
Effects Plot (fitted
means
) for EC-Result
Interaction
Plot (fitted
means
) for EC-
Result
site
Location
uhS
UPS
pn
wd
Site
DNS
UPS
taOV*A
-
MODO
t
o
'6w
.am
S to
^1- Calumet
-rx - Noru,s^ae
°^-- Sct3a7ey
trlaoon
--i-
DNS
-a - UPS
1- 0
20000
Weather

 
Figur
e 3-13. ANOVA Results; Dry and Wet Weather Fecal coliforins (FC)-vs Site,
Location, Weather
Factor Type Levels Values
Site
fixed
3 Calumet, Northside, Stickney
Location fixed
2
DNS, UPS
Weather fixed
2
Dry, Wet
Analysis of Variance for. FC-Result, using Adjusted 55 for Tests
`source
D
Seq SS
Site
2
E3.2162SE-+-12
Location
1
1.48286 N.'+12
Weather
1
8.956'74E+3.2
Site*Locat.i.on
2
1.'72380;:+12
Site*Weather
2 9.51074E+12
Location*Weather
1 2.14690E+12
Site* Location*Weather.
2 2.83182E+12
Rrror
93 1.187353::+14
Total
3.04 ;..53604E+14
Adj SS
Adj MS
F
P
7.64653E+12 3.8 23265+1 2
2.99
0.055
1.33176E.+.12
1.3
3176E+1 2
1.04
0.310
5.19114EA-12
5.1
91142+1 2
4.07
0.047
2.79905E+7.2
1.3
99522~ 1 2 1.10 0.338
7.55820E+7.2 3.7'7910E+1 2
2.96 0.057
1.57231;x.+.12
1.5 72313:+1 2
1, 23
0.270
7,.833.82E+1.2
1.4 1591E+1 2
1.3.1.
0.334
7..18135E+14
1.2
?6721P+•3. 2
S - 1129918
R-Sq ^ 22.70%
R-Sq,adj) = 13.56%
Main Effects
Plot (fitted
means
) for FC-Result
r
Ste
Location
Interaction
Plat (fined means) for FC-Result
1)"
uas
atv
VM
wpm
loom
0
SIMM
0
Site
-f- Calumet
- 44
North,,W
tombon
-^- DNS
I--m -- UPS
Waathet
Dry
vat

 
Figure 3-14
. ANOVA
Results: Dry and Wet Weather
.
Enterococcus
(EN)-vs Site,
Location
,
Weather
Factor Type
Levels
values
Site
fixed
3 Calumet, Northsi.de, Sti.ckney
Location fixed
2
DNS, Ups
Weather
fixed
2 Dry,
Wet
Analysis of Variance for EN-Result, using Adjusted SS for. Tests
Source
Site
Location
weather
site*LocaLion
Site*Weather
Location*Weather
Site*Location*Weather
Error
Total
S = 30181.9
DF
Seq SS
Adj S5
Adj MS
E
P
2
8930757038 10626391514 5314195757
5.83
0.004
1
47827470
41458991
41458991
0.05 0.832
1 20329722637 13256991835 7.3256941835 14 , 55 0.000
2 709926440 1517836660
758918330 0.83
0.438
2
11609334268
10803606740 5401.603370
5.93
0.004
1 169279329
72737410
72737410
0.08 0.7178
2 1501755019 1501755019 '750877509
0.82
0.442
93 84717922360 84717922360 910945402
104 1.28012Eill
R-Sq = 33.82%
R-Sq(adj) = 25.99$
Main Effects Plot (fitted means) f
or EN-Resuii
;
Interaction Plot (fitted
means
) for
-Result
Site
LoCakia^
10000
:0000
,0000
n
90000
20000-
Calumet Nprtlls6e
S4cfney
weather
J
DNS
UPS
Site
--^^- C2lvmet
-iY - NMUWde
--$- Stdnev
tmx
on
+ DN5
-2 - OPS
W.Ath.r
0
Ciy
Wet

 
Figure 3
-15.
ANOVA
Dry and Wet Weather Results
:
Pseudornonas aeruginosa
(PA)-vs
Site, Location
,
Weather
Factor Type
Levels
Values
Site
fixed
3
Calumet, Northside, Stickney
Location fixed
2
DNS, UPS
Weather
fixed
2 Dry,
Wet
Analysis of Variance for PA-Result, using Adjusted SS for Tests
Source
Site
Location
Weather
Site*Location
Site*Weather
Location*Weather
Site*Location*Weather
Error
Total
DF
Seq SS
2
44163.6973
1
10667259
1 2589159499
2 217156362
2 1182143499
1
732611
2 232796854
93 9119832219
104 13794105276
S = 9902.66
R-Sq = 33.89%
Adj SS
Adj MS
F
P
631491193 315745596
3.22
0.044
9235164
9235164 0.09 0.760
1656144308 1656144308 16.89 0.000
253295666 126647833 1.29 0.280
1108234022
554117011
5.65
0.005
620943
620943
0.01 0.937
232796854 116398427 1.19 01310
9119832219
98062712
R-Sq(adj) = 26.07
Main Effects
Plot (fitted
means
) for PA
-Result
Site
Location
Site
^- ceemet
-M - Noithside
Vto
Location
-+- DNS
- - UPS
Weather
W-thor
Interaction
Plot (fitted
means
) for PA-
Result
Dry
Wet

 
Figure 3-16.
Geometric Mean Dry Weather Bacteria Concentrations at North Side
North Side
UPS
Out}all
DNS
0
n
Salmonella
q
P. Aeruginosa
q
E'nterococcus
n
E. Coh
0 F. Coliform
20,000
30,000
40,
000
50
,
000
60,000
Geometric
Mean
Concentration (CF1J1100 ml.)
Note:
The units for
Salmonella
are in MPN/1O0 ml,

 
Figure 3-17.
Geometric Mean Dry Weather Bacteria Concentrations at Stickney
Stickney
outfall
Note:
UPS
. -1
DNS
n
salrnoneila
p P. Aerugrnosa
p Enterococcus
n
E. Coli
OF Coliform
0
10,000
20,000
30
,
000
40
,
000
$0
,
000
60,000
Geometric Mean Concentratlon
(CFU1100 ml-)
l
'rhe units for
Salmonella
are in MPN1140 mL

 
Figure 3-18.
Geometric Mean Dry Weather Bacteria Concentrations at Calumet
Calumet
Outtall
DNS
UPS
F^I
0
M saknonelle
o P. Aeruginoso
C1 Enterococcus
M E. Colt
n
F. Coliform
10,000
20
,
000
30,000
40
,
000
. 60,000
Geometric Mean Concentration
(
CFU1100 mL)
60,000
J
Note:
The units for
Salmonella
are in MPN/100 mL

 
Figure 3-19
.
Wet Weather Geometric Mean Bacteria Concentrations by Location (UPS, DNS
,
OUTFALL
) at North
Side, Stickney and Calumet WRPs
(
cfu11U
(
imL;
Salmonella
in
MPN/L)
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
DNS
Outfall
Calumet
Notes:
UPS=Upstream
DNS=Downstream
PA=Pseudomonas aeruginosa
FC=Fecal coliforms
EC=E. coli
EN=Enterococci
SA=Salmonella
UPS
DNS
Outfall
Northside
UPS
DNS
Outfall
UPS
Stickney
n
EC
n
EN
© FC
p PA
n
SA

 
Figure 3-20
.
Dry and Wet Weather Geometric Mean Bacteria Concentrations by WRP (including OUTFALLS, UPS,
DNS) (cfu
/
100mL
;
Salmonella
in MPN/L)
Notes:
200000
n
Calumet
160000
n
Northside
q
Stickney
120000
80000
40000
dry
I
wet
EN
wet
dry
I
wet
dry
FC
UPS=Upstream
EC=E. coli
DNS=Downstream
EN=Enterococci
PA=Pseudomonas aeruginosa
SA=Salmonella
FC=Fecal coliforms
PA
SA
wet

 
Figure 3
-
21.
North Side Dry Weather Spatial Box Plots of Bacteria Concentrations
0
Notes:
6
Eatef"O[cus
:005>-k
Q3 . ^55b-L
Pti+e
-N5
Outal l
UPS
6
5
4
2
7
F. Coll
Fecal
Colifomt
b
A AL-m!
7%NOSa
51
41
31
0
21
t1
4% non dete--y with deMMon
level values assumed
(DL-IN)
0
ows
arffall
uvs
UPS = Upstream
DNS = Downstream

 
Figure 3
-
22.
Stickney Dry Weather Spatial Box Plots of Bacteria Concentrations
6
Notes:
61
Entemcoccus
E. COG
lOP.6-&
Q3 = 7541-k
Q2
1
-
-
571-1i
;-k
DNS
Oatfall
UPS
61
FecalCOOOMl
51
41
13
31
21
li
a
DNS
O.dall
UPS
A ABfzkjhVSa
UPS = Upstream
DNS = Downstream

 
Figure 3-23. Calumet Dry Weather Spatial Box Plots of Bacteria Concentration
Notes:
6
Ent emcoccus
100 .ie
q5 = %ts-k
Q2=SA.4
Q. = zgjr e
0%+e
INS
0
OutFa II
U PS
E. CON
Fecal CoGfomi
6
4
3
I
A Aenigarosa
u
DNS
OdtfaE
UPS
UPS = Upstream
DNS = Downstream

 
Figure 3-24. North Side Wet Weather Temporal Percentile Box Plots of Bacteria
Concentrations
North Side (all wet data)
E. Coll
4.01
612611005 8/312006
9/23/2006
Date Sampled
A Ac'my71USd
Notes:
612612006 013/2006 912312006
Date Sampled
UPS=upstream
DNS=Downstream
PA=I'scc{dr3lnntttt.s aeruginn.sca
FC=Fecal coliforms
f.,C=E. cula
) rN =.I weroeocci
S A=Sahnon.e lla
Enterococcus
612512006 8/312006
912312406
Date Sampled
S',Ylf1fUllP/liY
612611006
0/312006 9/23f2006
Dale Sampled
Feca I Collfann
G/2612006
01312006
912312006
Date SainjOed
m
Vx )laItatton
Q2 = 75 .iie
Qi ^ ?5°h•iie

 
Figure 3-25. Stickney Wet Weather Temporal Percentile
Box Plots
of Bacteria
Concentrations
Stickney (all svet data)
F. CON
b(W/2006
61312006 10111,2006
Date Sampled
A Aeerugiuosa
Nobs:
61101200G
81112006 FO1i112006
Date SaTmAed
UPS=UPSvealn
DNS=Downstrean0
Pit=
F'selydomonas aeniginosa
FC=Fecal colifornns
1rC=h'. cnli
FwN=Enterococci
SA= atmonefla
6utemcocars
6/',012006 8
;3/2006 10111/2006
Date Sara txM
Sakuor7u^pa
1.01
-0,51
-1,0
611012006 $1312006 10111/2036
Date Sampled
Fecal Coiilonn
611012005
613/2006
I01f if 2i 06
Hate Sampled
Exotallation
Q3 - 25%.fle
Q3 • 7s%-Ile
100%-He
q2 « 50%-ile
0%-iie

 
Figure 3-26. Calumet Wet Weather 't'emporal Percentile Box Plots of Bacteri:1
Concentrations
.
Calumet (all wet data)
E. soli
sl=@!2006
$12912006
!011212006
Date Sampled
A AwrIgfrtosd
Notes:
812412006 $12912aes 10/1712006
Date Samyled
Ul'S=Upslivaln
I)NS=Downy tream
PA•=Pseudomonas aeruginoso
FC=Fecal colilorms
F C=E-
coli
EN=Enterococci
SA=Sabnonella
Penal Colifonll
812412006 812912005 1011712005
Data Sal.) lk-.d
012412006 8/2912008
70117(101)6
Datc Samjkd
S7hno11rAy
1.01
-
1.01
0f2412008
0129/2005 1O/1712M
Data SmO d
^lSE?l^.tt^xfol^
Qa " 75%-fla
10M,4,
„^Q2 - SM,ile
Q7 9 ?.°slla
01",ile

 
4.
DISINFECTION
Disinfection is the destruction or otherwise inactivation of disease causing pathogenic
microorganisms, including bacteria, viruses, and protozoa.
Major disinfection
mechanisms include: (1) damage to the cell wall, (2) alteration of cell permeability,
(3) alteration of the colloidal nature of the protoplasm, and (4) inhibition of enzyme
activity. Oxidizing agents, such as chlorine, can alter the chemical arrangement of
enzymes and deactivate the enzyme. Radiation and ozone alter the colloidal nature of
the protoplasm, producing a lethal effect (Metcalf & Eddy, 1991; Montgomery, 1985).
Disinfection is most commonly accomplished by the use of (1) chemical agents, (2)
physical agents, and (3) radiation. Chlorine is the most commonly used chemical
disinfectant. In addition, chlorarnines and chlorine dioxide can be used. Ozone is a
highly effective disinfectant and its use is increasing.
Ultra violet (UV) radiation is a
physical disinfectant. UV radiation was originally used for high quality water supplies
but is increasingly being used for wastewater disinfection. Chlorination and UV
irradiation are the most prevalent forms of wastewater disinfection in the United States
(Metcalf & Eddy, 1991; Montgomery, 1985;
WLRF,
2005).
Table 4-1 presents a
summary of disinfectant characteristics.
The following disinfection technologies have been evaluated by the District's
consultants as candidate disinfection alternatives for the North Side, Sticlt.ney and
Calumet WRPs (MWRDGC, 2005):
• Chlorination/dechlor•
ination
• UV
Ozonation
Rim] Wetdry-April 2008
58

 
The District's evaluation criteria included: (1) long-term and short-term performance,
(2) cost, (3) formation of disinfection by-products, and (4) public acceptance criteria.
Chlorination/dechlorination is the most common disinfection method practiced in
publicly owned treatment works (PQTWs) in the State of Illinois.
Dechlorination is
needed to meet the District's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination (NPDF?S)
effluent discharge limit of 0.05 mg/L for residual chlorine (Lue-Ring, 2005).
Therefore, chlorination without dechlorination will not be considered in the evaluation
of hurnan risk assessment.
A large volume of scientific research has been conducted to assess whether municipal
wastewater effluents need to be disinfected, and if so, how it should be accomplished.
WERF
(2005) concludes that it is not clear that wastewater disinfection should be'
practiced in all cases.
Decisions regarding the need for effluent disinfection must be
made on a site-specific basis, According to
WERF
(2005), disinfection is warranted in
situations
where direct human contact in the immediate vicinity of acr outfall is
possible or where effluent is discharged to areas involving; the production of human
food.
Disinfection is warranted in situations where its application leads to a reduction
in the risk of disease transmission.
As illustrated by post-disinfection regrowth of
bacteria, relatively poor virucidal behavior, and generation of persistent disinfection
by-products (DBPs), it is not clear that wastewater disinfection always yields
improved effluent or receiving water quality
(WERF,
2005).
The following sections discuss chlorination/dechlorination, ozonation and UV effluent
disinfection characteristics.
4.1 ChlorinartionfDechlorination
Chlorination is
widely used for wastewater disinfection in the United States.
Although there are widespread differences in the susceptibility of various pathogens,
Final
wetdry-April 2009
59

 
the general order of decreasing chlorine disinfection effectiveness are bacteria,
viruses, and then protozoa (EPA, 1999).
Turbidity, color, inorganic, and organic nitrogenous compounds, iron, manganese,
hydrogen sulfide, and total organic carbon have been shown to consistently and
negatively influence chlorine disinfection efficiency.
Chlorine-based disinfection of
wastewater can be influenced by: (1) disinfectant concentration, (2) contact time, (3)
pf:l, (4) temperature, and (5) physiological status of the target microbes (Montgomery,
1985).
Done properly, chlorination following; secondary treatment will inactivate more than
99%
of the pathogenic bacteria in the effluent.
Viruses, and parasites found in
municipal wastewater, whether primary or secondary, are characterized as being much
more resistant and have different sensitivities to chlorination.
When comparing the
FC lo-lo reduction values following disinfection with chlorine, there was some
variability between samples from different facilities. There appears to be no seasonal
explanation for this variability; rather, it is likely that changes in the microbiological,
chemical, and physical components of the wastewater streams were responsible for the
observed variations in disinfection efficacy
(WERF,
2005; EPA, 1999).
Results from the primary treatment of sewage coupled with chlorine disinfection
demonstrated that
enterococei
were more resistant to chlorination than
E.eoli.
Also,
both bacteria were inactivated more rapidly than the viruses examined. 'T'here are
currently no data to demonstrate that
Giardia
cysts are inactivated during chlorine-
based disinfection of secondary effluents. Studies on infectivity of
Cryptosporidiunz
have found no inactivation due to chlorination of even highly treated wastewaters
(WERF,
2005).
Final Wesdry-April 2008
60

 
Chlorine disinfection can inactivate some viruses in wastewater, but not as effectively
as it does in drinking water because of interference by dissolved organics and
suspended particulates
.
Unless ammonia-nitl-ogen is removed from wastewater (e.g.
through nitrification
),
the predominant form of chlorine will be chloramines, which
are generally regarded as being less effective against viruses and parasites than free
chlorine
(WERF,
2005; EPA, 1999).
Chlorination beyond the break point to obtain free chlorine is required to kill many of
the viruses of concern.
To minimize the effects of the potentially toxic chlorine
residuals on the environment, it is necessary to dechlorinate wastewater treated with
chlorine.
Dechlorination is necessary to reduce effluent toxicity because residual free
chlorine and chloramines can cause acute toxicity effects in receiving waters (Sedlak
and Pehlivanoglou, 2004).
Traditional dechlorination is accomplished by adding
sodium bisulfite, followed by discharge to the environment
.
Other dechlorination
reagents include
:
sulfur dioxide, sodium metabisulfite
,
sodium sulfite, sodium
thiosulfate,
ammonium bisulfite, and ammonium thiosulfate (Sedlak and
Pehlivanoglou
, 2004).
The reactions between bisulfite [S (IV)] and free chlorine, or bisulfit.e and inorganic
combined chlorine are extremely rapid. However
,
less is known about the kinetics of
reactions between bisulfite and organic combined chlorine. Studies have indicated
that some organic chloramines are recalcitrant to S (IV
)-
based dechlorination and may
cause toxicity in dechlorinated wastewater effluent.
This suggests that organic
chloramines might pose toxicity risks
.
Likewise, little is known on the fate of S(IV) in
natural
waters.
Also, some organic-N compounds (e.g., propionamilide) may be
recalcitrant to biodegradation.
Some chlorinated organic-N compounds have been
observed to be resistant to traditional dechlorination using; S (IV). Studies have shown
that dechlorination was capable of removing 87%v to 98
%
of residual chlorine, but the
remainder,
which may exceed regulatory liMi€S, was very slowly reduced.
The
Final WetdryApril 2009
61

 
dechlorination rate and extent are likely to depend on the structure of the organic-N
precursors.
Chlorinated secondary organic amines and peptides have been shown to
be important contributors to S (1V)-resistant residual chlorine. Studies have shown
that some organic-N-chlorarnines were dechlorinated slowly by sulfite, with half lives
of X20 minutes
.
Studies have also shown that the dechlorination rate constants of N-
chloropeptides were 1 to 2 orders of magnitude smaller than those for NH2C] and
some aliphatic organic chloramines
(WERF,
2005; Jensen, 1997, Sedlak and
Pehlivanoglu
, 2004).
4.2 Ozone
Ozonation is considered a viable alternative to chlorination, especially where
dechlorination may be required
.
Because ozone dissipates rapidly and decomposes to
oxygen, ozone residuals will normally not be found in the effluent discharged into the
receiving water. However, some researchers have reported that ozonation can produce
some unstable, toxic, rnutagenic and/or carcinogenic compounds (EPA, 2002).
In the context of wastewater treatment, the high reactivity of ozone males it
appropriate for disinfection
,
color removal, the degradation or conversion of organic
micropollutants
,
the conversion of chernical oxygen demand
(COD),
and effluent
oxygenation
.
The effectiveness of ozone disinfection depends on the ozone dose, the
quality of the effluent
,
the ozone demand, and the transfer efficiency of the ozone
system (EPA, 2002).
The disinfection dose (i.e., the dose of ozone that achieves certain microbiological
standards in a municipal effluent
)
is expressed as the transferred
(
or absorbed
)
mass of
ozone per liter of effluent in mg/L. The ozone dose is described by the CT product,
where C is the concentration of dissolved
(
residual
)
ozone measured at the outlet of
the contact chamber (in milligrams per liter) and T is the contact time between the
residual ozone and water
(
in minutes
).
The physicochemical quality of the effluent is
Final
wetdry
-
April 2008
62

 
particularly influential in determining the effectiveness of disinfection and the ozone
dose required to achieve a specific performance (Paraskeva and Graham, 2002).
Attempts have been made to establish empirical relationships or formulas to predict
the total or fecal coliform (FC) inactivation by ozonation in terms of organic and
inorganic species, such as COD, '1'SS, and nitrite-nitrogen (NO2 - N). A close linear
relationship (R = 0.95) has been established between the logarithm of FC survival
(counts remaining/initial counts) and the COD of the influent wastewater to the
ozonation chamber, although this was for a very narrow ozone dose range (8 to 10
nig/L) (Paraskeva and Graham, 2002).
Ozone has been found to be very effective at inactivating a wide range of
microorganisms and is generally believed to be more effective than chlorine.
The
mechanism of bacterial inactivation by ozone is thought to occur by general
inactivation of the whole cell. Thus, ozone causes damage to the cell membrane, to the
nucleic acids, and to certain enzymes (Paraskeva and Graham, 2002).
Ozone is particularly effective against viruses.
The mechanism of viral inactivation
involves coagulation of the protein and oxidation of the nucleobases forming the
nucleic acid. Studies have shown that a 5 mg/L dose and S-minute contact time were
sufficient to achieve a 5-log removal of the highly resistant virus, 1v1S2 bacteriophage.
Compared with chlorine and UV irradiation, ozone requited a shorter contact time to
achieve the same inactivation level (Paraskeva and Graham, 2002),
4.3 UV
UV radiation at a wavelength of around 251 nm penetrates the cell wall of
microorganisms and is absorbed by cellular material, including nucleic acids (DNA and
RNA), which either prevents replication or causes death of the cell to occur.
The
effectiveness of UV is largely dependent on the applied UV dose, suspended solids
I-in it Wctdry-April 2008
63

 
content, UV transmittal, non-disinfected microbial concentration, and the degree of
association of microorganisms with particles (EPA, 2003).
The UV dose is commonly defined as the product of radiation intensity and exposure
time, also known as contact time, T. A proper dosage of UV radiation has been shown
to be an effective disinfectant for several microorganisms while not contributing to the
formation of toxic compounds. However, certain chemical compounds may be altered
by the UV radiation and additional investigation into this occurrence is warranted
(Andrew, 2005;
WERF,
2005; EPA, 2003).
Because the only UV radiation effective in destroying microorganisms is the one that
reaches the microorganisms, the wastewater- must be relatively free of turbidity that can
absorb the UV energy and shield the microorganisms, It has been reported that UV
light is not an effective disinfectant for wastewaters that contain high total suspended
solids concentrations.
Because UV light is not a chemical agent, no toxic residuals are
produced (EPA, 2003).
UV disinfection is reportedly characterized by the following advantages over chlorine
(Lazarova and Savoys, 2004):
1. UV efficiency for protozoa of concern
(Cryptosporidir. m parvi4m
and
Giardia
lamblia)
is significantly greater than chlorine efficiency.
2.
Proven ability to disinfect pathogenic bacteria and most viruses. There were
no significant differences between the efficacy of chlorine and UV radiation
as a disinfectant for the reduction of FC,
3.
The formation of harmful by-products by UV is negligible at conventional UV
doses.
Final
Wetdry-April
2008
64

 
4.
Proven effectiveness in meeting federal wastewater effluent standards based
on the reduction of indicator organisms in the finished effluents to meet
permitted effluent discharge limits.
S,
increased safety compared to the storage and handling of chlorine.
6,
Increasing costs of chlorination due to regulations curbing chlorine discharge
limits, thus, mandating dechlorination, and
7.
UV technology has become increasingly more reliable and predictable with
regard to performance.
Improvements in the lamp and ballast technology has led to the use of medium pressure
UV sources for disinfection applications, thus, expanding the range of water qualities
that can be treated with UV radiation (EPA, 2003).
4,4
Disinfection B - roducts DBPs and
)
Residuals
Most disinfectants are strong oxidants, and can generate oxidants (such as
hydroxyl free
radicals) as by-products
that react with organic
and inorganic compounds in water to
produce
DBPs.
The production of DBPs depends on the amounts and types of
precursors in the water
.
Natural organic
matter (NOM
) is the principal
precursor of
organic
DBP formation
(EPA, 1999).
In applying any disinfectant, it is important to strike a balance between risks associated
with
microbial pathogens and those associated with DBI's.
DBPs are persistent
chemicals, some of which have relevant toxicological characteristics. The inventory of
DBPs that have the potential to express adverse health effects is large and highly
variable among POTW effluents.
Moreover, the human health effects associated with
chemical contaminants that are influenced or produced as a result of disinfection
operations tend to be chronic in nature.
Therefore, the development of a risk
assessment for exposure to chemical constituents, including DBPs, is far more complex
Final Wadry-April 2008
65

 
than the microbial risk assessment. Risk assessments of wastewater disinfection should
consider microbial and chemical quality
(WERF,
2005),
The issue of balancing chemical and microbial risks was the subject of a series of
conferences on the safety of water disinfection organized by the International Life
Science Institute.
The conference sessions provided a forum for scientists from the
disciplines of toxicology, chemistry, epidemiology, water treatment technology, public
health and risk assessment, to discuss recent advances in health effects of D13Ps of both
chlorination and alternative disinfectants.
The following conclusions were reached on
microbial versus chemical risks of" DBPs (Falwell et al., 1997):
Limited information is available concerning health risks from wastewater DBPs
Human exposure to DBPs raises the concern that even small risks could have
public health significance
Chemical risks increase with disinfectant dosages
• Chemical risks don't start from zero, due to the presence of background organic
constituents in wastewater
More information is available for chlorine DBP-' than other disinfectants
There is a scarcity of quantitative risk assessment of the relative risks of
chemical and microbial constituents
Chlorination
DBP concentrations vary seasonally and are typically greatest in the
summer and early fall for several reasons (EPA, 1999):
+
The rate of DBP formation increases with increasing temperature
The nature of organic DBP precursors varies with season
• Due to warmer temperatures, chlorine demand may be greater during summer
months, requiring higher dosages to maintain disinfection efficiency
FinA Wetdry-April 2008
66

 
Table 4-2 is a list of DBPs and disinfection residuals that may be a concern for human
health.
The table includes both the disinfectant residuals and the specific products
produced by the disinfectants of interest. These contaminants of concern are grouped
into four distinct categories, and include disinfectant residuals, inorganic by-products,
organic oxidation by-products
,
and halogenated organic by-products.
The health effects of disinfectants are generally evaluated by epidemiological studies
and/or toxicological studies using laboratory animals. Table 4-3 indicates the cancer,
classifications of both disinfectants and DBPs, as of January 1999. The classification
scheme used by EPA is shown at the bottom of Table 4-3. The EPA classification
scheme for carcinogenicity weighs both animal studies and epiderniologic studies, but
places greater weight on evidence of carcinogenicity
i
n humans.
The following
sections
discuss chlorination
DBPs and ozonation
DBPs.
IN
disinfection
results in
negligible
DBPs and is not discussed
further.
4.4.1
C
hlorination DBPs and Residuals
Certain organic constituents in wastewater
form
chlorination by-products including
chloroform, and chlorinated aliphatic and aromatic compounds.
Trihalomethanes
(THM),
mainly
chloroform
(CHC13),
bromodichloromethanc
(CHBrC12),
dibrornochloromethane
(CHBr2Cl),
and carbon
tribromide (0113r3)
account for the
majority of by-products on a weight basis.
Haloacetic acids are the next rnost
significant fraction, accounting for about 25% of DBPs. Aldehydes account for about
7% of DBPs (Viessman and Hammer, 1993; EPA., 1999).
In 2002, IPA published a national study on the occurrence of DBPs in drinking water.
More than 500 DBPs have been reported in the technical literature
,
but
only
a limited
number of them have been studied for adverse health effects, Approximately 50 DBPs
are denoted as "high priority" for drinking waters and include such compounds as MX
Final Wetdry
-April 2008
67

 
[3-chloro-4-(dicliloi-omethyl)-5-liydroxy-2(5H)-furanonel, brominated forms of
MX
(BMX,,), halonitrornethanes, iodo-trihalotnethanes, and many brominated species of
halotnethanes, haloacetonitriles, haloketones, and haloarnides (EPA, 2002).
An EPA (2002) study found that the use of disinfectants other- than chlorination does
not necessarily limit the formation of all halogenated DBPs, and can even result in
increased concentrations of some.
Halogenated furanones, including
MX and
brominated
MX (BMX) analogues, were widely observed at relatively high
concentrations, up to 310
ngfL.
Water treatment plants with the highest. MX and
BMX levels were plants that used chlorine dioxide for primary disinfection, probably
clue to the inability of chlorine dioxide to destroy MX precursors as ozone does (EPA,
2002).
Pre-ozonation, in some cases,
was found to increase the formation of
trihalonitroniethanes.
A number of brominated organic acids were identified, with
most being observed in water treatment plants that had significant. bromide levels in
their source area.
One of the high priority DBPs, 3,3-diellloropropenoic acid, was
found in several finished waters, providing further evidence that haloacids with longer
chains are prevalent DBPs. Dihaloacetaldehydes and brominated analogues of chloral
hydrate (trichloroacetaldehyde) were detected in many samples, as were mono-, di-,
tri-, and/or tetraspecies of halornethanes and haloketones. A newly-identified class of
DBPs, haloamides, were also found at significant levels (EPA, 2002).
Carbon tetrachloride was also found and it could be a DBP or a contaminant from the
cleaning process of chlorine cylinders, before they are filled (EPA, 2002).
Another
finding of the EPA study was the discovery of iodoacid by-products. These iodoacids
and iodobutanal were formed as DBPs in a high-bromide water from a treatment plant
that uses chloramines for disinfection.
Brominated acids, and another brominated
ketone (1-bromo-1,3,3-trichloropropan) were also identified for the first time.
Huai wcfdry-April 2008
68

 
In most cases where chloramination was used, the DBPs were relatively stable.
When
free chlorine was Wised, THMs and other DBPs, including haloacetic acids, increased
in concentration both in actual and simulated distribution systems.
Haloacetonitriles
were generally chemically stable and increased in concentration in distribution
systems, but many of the haloketones were found to degrade. Halonitro€riethanes and
dihaloacetaldehydes were found to be stable.
MX and MX analogues were sometimes
stable, and sometimes degraded but not to non-detectable levels. In several facilities
BMXs were stable.
4.4.2 Ozonation DBPs and Residuals
The heterogeneous nature of municipal wastewaters and the relatively high cast of
ozone application make it unlikely that organic substrates can be completely degraded
(to carbon dioxide and water) by ozone treatment, This has led to concerns over the
presence of intermediate by-product compounds that may be of toxicological
significance.
The reactivity of ozone with hu€nic substances has also received
considerable attention in recent years because such substances are found in natural and
polluted waters, and are known to influence ozone decomposition and the occurrence
of secondary radicals.
Ozone causes substantial structural changes to humic substances such as: strong and
rapid decrease in color and UV-absorbance resulting from a loss of aromaticity and
depolymerization; a small reduction in total organic carbon (TOC); a slight decrease in
the high apparent molecular weight fractions and a slight increase in the smaller
fractions, a significant increase of the carboxylic fractions; and the formation of ozone
by-products (Paraskeva and Graham, 2002). By-products such as aldehydes, ketones,
acids, and other species can be formed upon ozonation of wastewater. The primary
aldehydes that have been measured are: formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, glyoxyl, and
methyl glyoxal.
The total aldehyde concentration in drinking water disinfected with
Final
Wetdry-April 2008
69

 
ozone depends on the TOC concentration and the applied ozone to organic carbon
ratio.
Aldehydes with higher molecular weights have also been reported. The primary
carboxylic acids pleasured include (formic, acetic, glyoxylic, pyruvic, and ketomalinic
acids).
Table 4-4 presents principal known by-products of ozonation (Paraskeva and
Graham, 2002; EPA, 1999).
A significant concern associated with ozone disinfection in drinking water is the
potential of halogenated substances such as bromate, a possible carcinogen, and
brominated organics (including bromoform) arising from the reaction of ozone and
bromide. In contrast, the potential formation of brominated components in the field of
wastewater treatment has received comparatively little research attention.
The
scarcity
of information concerning the formation of ozonation by-products in
wastewater effluents clearly indicates that further investigations are necessary on this
subject (Paraskeva and Graham, 2002).
Ozonation of wastewater containing bromide ions can produce brominated by-
products, the brominated analogues of the chlorinated DBPs. Bromate ion formation
is an important consideration for waters containing more than 0.10 mg/L bromide ion,
These brominated by-products include bromate ion, bromoform, the brominated acetic
acids and acetonitriles, broniopicrin, and cyanogen bromide (if ammonia is present),
An ozone dose of 2 mg/L produced 53 µg/L of bromoform and 17 µg/L of
dibromoaeetic acid in a water containing 2 mg/L of bromide ion. Ozonation of the
same water spiked with 2 €ng/1... bromide ion showed cyanogen bromide formation of
10
µg/L
Furthermore, ozone may react with the hypobromite ion to form broinate
ion, a probable human carcinogen. Bromate ion concentrations in ozonated water of
up to 60 µg/L have been reported. Note that the amount of bromide ion incorporated
into the measured DBPs accounts for only one-third of the total raw water bromide ion
concentration.
This indicates that other brominated DBPs exist that are not yet
identified (EPA, 1999).
Fimti
wetdry.April 2008
70

 
The presence of residual ozone concentrations following ozonation can be toxic to
many forms of aquatic life. The tolerance to ozone varies with the type of organism,
the period of exposure and its age. Even very small residual ozone concentrations can
cause mortality in fish and larvae (Paraskeva and Graham, 2002).
In the context of wastewater disinfection, however, residual ozone concentrations are
believed to be short-lived and to have decayed before the final discharge of the
effluent to the receiving water system.
For low residual ozone doses arising from
typical disinfection conditions (i.e., 0.2 to 1,0 mg Os/L), the time required for ozone
decay to below detectable concentrations was between 20 seconds and 2 minutes.
Toxicity studies of disinfected municipal wastewater effluents using
Ceriodaphnia
dubia
indicated that toxicity results were site-specific and seasonal, but confirmed that
ozone had the ability to change the toxicity of the effluent, either by increasing or
decreasing it (Paraskeva and Graham, 2002).
Studies using fish and crustaceans as test organisms did not result in any changes in
the toxicity of a secondary effluent after ozonation. Changes in effluent mutagenicity
were found to be site-specific (Paraskeva and Graham, 2002). Several researchers
reported that ozone did not induce lnutagenicity in a secondary municipal effluent, and
they presented evidence that ozone: could reduce the mutagenicity of the effluent.
Other researchers found that ozone at low doses (2.5 to 3 O3 mg11.,) produced a low
level of mutagenicity in samples of secondary effluent taken in both sunln-wr and
winter; no rnutagenicity was recorded in untreated effluent samples (Paraskeva and
Graham, 2002).
4.5
Disinfection Effectiveness
The effectiveness of disinfection is a complex function of several variables including
type and dose of disinfectant, type and concentration of microorganisms, contact time,
Final WeuiryAps,il2008
71

 
and water quality characteristics. In most cases, pilot-studies and other considerations
guide the selection process.
The overall behavior of a disinfection system will be
affected by (non-disinfected) effluent composition, the type of disinfectant applied, the
design of the disinfection system, and the operating conditions.
For example, the
presence or absence of nitrogenous compounds (organic or inorganic) can have a
profound effect on chlorine-based systems. Chlorinated forms of these compounds are
generally less effective disinfectants than free chlorine.
Moreover, inorganic and
organic nitrogenous compounds represent important precursors to DBP formation, as
discussed in detail in the previous section.
Nitrogenous compounds can also have an
adverse effect oil UV disinfection systems as UV-absorbing compounds
(WERF,
2005).
The effectiveness of the disinfectants will be influenced by the nature and condition of
the microorganisms. For example, viable growing bacteria cells are killed easily. In
contrast,
bacterial
spores are extremely resistant and many of the chemical
disinfectants normally used will have little or no effect
(WE'RE,
2005).
Wastewater characteristics other than microbiological components also influence
disinfectant efficiency.
Among these are turbidity, organics, disinfectant scavengers,
pH and temperature.
Particulates responsible for turbidity can surround and shield
microorganisms from disinfectant action. Organic materials can decrease disinfection
efficiency, by one or snore of the following mechanisms-
Adhering to cell surfaces and hindering attack by the disinfectant
Reacting with the disinfectant, to form compounds with weaker germicidal
properties
Reacting with the disinfectant, to form toxic by-products
Pinal
wetdry-April 2008
72

 
Compounds such as iron, manganese, hydrogen sulfide, cyanides, and nitrates can
decrease the disinfection efficiency as they are rapidly oxidized by and thereby deplete
the disinfectant.
This reaction of inorganic compounds with disinfectant, such as
chlorine, creates a demand that must be met before the disinfectant can act. on the
inicroorganisins.
The pH of the water affects the chemical forin of the disinfectant in aqueous solution,
and can influence microbial destruction.
For example, the most active chlorine
species for disinfection is hypochlorous acid (HOC]), which predominates in water if
the pl_i is less than 7. Temperature affects the reaction rate of the disinfection process,
such as diffusion of the disinfectant through cell walls or the reaction rate with key
enzymes, and can influence the rate of disinfection (Montgomery, 1985).
The following
sections discuss: (1) bacteria disinfection efficiency, (2) protozoa
disinfection efficiency
,
and (3
)
virus disinfection efficiency.
4.5.1
Bacteria Disinfection Efficiency
The current regulatory focus of wastewater disinfection is on fecal coliform (FC) and
E.coh
bacteria.
State and federal regulations require monitoring of the FC indicator
group of bacteria in wastewater treatment facility effluents.
These regulations are
designed to assess the microbiological contamination following contact or ingestion of
the effluent or receiving waters (MWRDGC, 2005x).
Disinfectant efficiencies used in wastewater treatment processes are commonly
evaluated using the FC group. l:C removal or reduction, expressed as the difference
between the log values of 1!C concentration prior to and following treatment, is a
commonly used parameter for characterization of disinfection efficacy.
However,
there is little information about the correlation between these indicator organisms and
pathogens, particularly
in terms
of long-term behavior.
Also, many of the pathogenic
Finns
WetdryAptit 2008
73

 
bacteria are not culturable. In fact, less than
1%
of the microorganisms in natural
water and soil samples are cultured in viable count procedures. If available, published
data regarding pathogen inactivation achieved by disinfection are typically used to
estimate the concentration of pathogens in disinfected wastewater
(WERE,
2005).
Recent research results provide a detailed characterization of the effects of common
disinfectants (chlorine, UV radiation and ozone) on wastewater bacteria, in terms of
initial
response to disinfectant exposure, changes in bacterial community post-
exposure, and the nature and extent of bacterial physiological damage resulting frona
exposure to these disinfectants
(WER.lr,
2005).
Chlorine is an extremely effective disinfectant for inactivating bacteria, including E.
soli
and
Pseudornonas aeruginosa.
Data presented in the technical literature indicate
that
UV irradiation and chlorination/dechlorination, when applied with the goal of
complying with conventional effluent discharge regulations, are similar in terms of
their ability to inactivate water-borne bacteria, although total bacterial populations
genet-ally recover to a greater extent in chlorinated effluents than in UV irradiated
effluents.
Also, the conditions that are used to accomplish indicator bacteria
inactivation based on chlorination/dechlorination are relatively ineffective for control
of waterborne viruses, as compared with UV irradiation
(WERF,
2005).
Both pilot-plant studies and results from operating plants have shown that ozone
effectively removes fecal and total coliforms, as well as enteric viruses from
secondary effluents.
Typical disinfection doses, contact times, and residual ozone
concentrations required for the reduction of indicator organisms, based upon pilot-
plant studies and operating plants are presented in 'T'able 4-5.
Studies have also shown the effect of small concentrations of dissolved ozone (i.e., 0.6
µg/L) on
E.coh.
E.coli
levels were reduced by 4 logs (99.99 percent removal) in less
Final
we[dry
-
April
20D8
74

 
than I minute with an ozone residual of 9 [.g/I., at a temperature of 12°C.
E.coli
is one
of the most sensitive types of bacteria to ozone disinfection. Furthermore, significant
differences in ozone disinfection efficiency have been found among the Gram-
negative bacillae, including
E.coli
and other pathogens such as
Salmonella,
which are
all sensitive to ozone inactivation.
The Grain-positive cocci
(Staphylococcus
and
Streptococcus),
the Gram-positive bacillae
(Bacillus),
and the Mycobacteria are the
most resistant forms of bacteria to ozone disinfection. Sporular bacteria forms are
always far more resistant to ozone disinfection than vegetative form-,, but all are easily
destroyed by relatively love levels of ozone (EPA, 1999).
An important factor affecting long-term disinfection efficacy is re-growth potential,
After disinfection, some sub-lethally damaged bacteria may be able to repair
disinfectant-induced damage. Together with organisms that retain viability following
disinfection, it is possible for the microbial community to re-grow. Experiments were
conducted to assess the long-term effects of chlorination/dechlorination and UV
irradiation on indigenous bacterial communities. These experiments were designed to
provide information regarding the effects of disinfectant exposure on bacteria at tinge
scales
well beyond those represented by conventional methods, where disinfected
effluent samples are collected and assayed for viable indicator bacteria immediately
after treatment
(WE'RF,
2005).
Based on re-growth conditions and FC: (indicator) to total bacteria ratio, the long-term
outcome of disinfection processes can be divided into the nine scenarios illustrated in
Figure 4-1.
From this figure, the effectiveness of a disinfection process can be
evaluated based upon variations in the total bacterial community and the pathogenic
fraction.
Cases for which disinfection is not effective against pathogenic bacteria are
indicated by red.
Cases for which disinfection efficacy is not clear are indicated by
gray.
Final Wetdry-Apt7l 2W8
75

 
For example, cases
(
c), (g), and
(
i) in Figure
4-1 may
represent a positive effect of
disinfection since they imply a reduction in pathogenic bacteria.
Cases
(
a), (b), (d),
and (e
)
in Figure 4-1 represent an adverse effect of disinfection since pathogenic
bacteria concentrations are not reduced.
In cases
(
f) and
(
h) in Figure 4
-
1, it is
difficult
to judge disinfection efficacy as judgment of antibacterial
efficacy
requires
additional information
,
such as the concentration of pathogenic bacteria or indicator
microorganisms.
To evaluate if disinfection is effective in reducing bacterial risk, it is necessary to
consider re-growth and pathogen ratios.
Under conditions of abundant substrate
supply, rapidly-growing microorganisms usually dominate populations. This is true in
municipal wastewater treatment facilities, where the abundance of available organic
substrates favors the growth of rapidly dividing bacteria, such as coliforms and
pseudomonads.
These dominant microbial populations in sewage, which gain a
competitive advantage because of their high intrinsic growth rates, are rapidly
displaced in competition with other microbial populations of receiving waters as the
concentration of organic compounds diminishes, owing to natural attenuation
mechanisms, such as degradation and dilution.
Under lower nutrient conditions, a
more diverse community of slowly growing bacteria is favored
(WsRF,
2005).
Experimental results from chlorination/dechlorination and UV disinfection studies
indicate that these processes can result in reduced FC concentrations compared to the
initial
concentration, even after re-growth. In addition, the following conclusions
were drawn
(WX;RF,
2005):
1.
FC, when used as an indicator, may overestimate disinfection efficacy or
microbial quality of disinfected samples, since they are relatively
susceptible to common disinfectants (chlorine and UV) and they have a
higher die-off rate than other microorganisms.
Fiaa3 We(dryApol2008
76

 
2.
"Dark" (non-photochemical) repair following UV irradiation may play an
important role relative to the re-growth potential of UV disinfectant
microbial samples. Similarly, "dark" repair mechanisms may also play a
role in the fate of chlorinated microbial samples.
3.
Based on the long;-term trends
i
n pC and total bacterial concentrations,
wastewater effluents
respond more favorably to UV
irradiation than to
chlorination
/
dechlorination.
4.5.2
Protozoa Disinfection Efficiency
Cryptosporidium
was not recognized as an important human waterborne pathogen
until the naid-1980x, and wastewater regulations have not incorporated removal or
inactivation of oocysts in wastewater effluent standards
(
Clancy, et al. 2004).
Animals and humans are reservoirs of this parasite
,
and it enters the environment
through shedding of fecal material.
Dozens of species harbor
Cryptosporidiunt
oocysts, including mammals (e.g. cattle, horses, rodents, deer, dogs, cats, kangaroos),
birds, reptiles, and fish.
As such, there are many routes for this parasite to enter the
environment
,
including natural runoff
(
non-point sources
),
runoff from agriculture,
effluents from industries such as heat processors
,
wastewater effluents, and combined
sewer overflows (CSOs) (Clancy, et al., 2004).
Cryptosporidiurn parvarn
appears to lack host specificity, and has been shown to be
able to cross
-
infect rodents,
ruminants
,
and humans
(
Finch et
al., 1993).
Crispto.sporidiutn
is
a significant concern to water suppliers worldwide, as this
protozoan parasite forms highly-resistant oocysts that can survive in most environments
for extended periods. In addition, oocysts are difficult to remove in water treatment by
filtration due to their small size (4 to 5 p,m) (Clancy, 2004).
Cryptosporidium
oocysts can typically occur in all wastewater matrices, from raw
sewage to tertiary effluents
.
The percentage of sanitary wastewater samples positive
Final
Wetdiy-April 2008
77

 
for oocysts is relatively high. A fifteen-month
Cryptosporidium
study was conducted at
wastewater facilities located in
Alabama, California, Colorado,
North
Carolina,
Pennsylvania and Vermont, The percent of samples positive for
Cryptosporidi.um.
were
as follows:
30%
of raw sewage (95 samples total); 46% of primary effluent (84 samples
total); 59% for secondary effluent (94 samples total); and 19% for tertiary effluent (16
samples total) (Clancy, 2004).
While occurrence is common, a critical question for risk
assessment is whether or not the oocysts recovered are able to cause infection in
humans or animals.
Chlorine has been shown to have limited success inactivating protozoa. The resistance
of
Giardia
cysts has been reported to be two orders of magnitude higher than that of
enteroviruses and more than three orders of magnitude higher than the enteric bacteria.
CT requirements for
Giardia
cyst inactivation when using chlorine as a disinfectant has
been determined for various pH and temperature conditions. These CT values increase
at low temperatures and high pli (EPA, 1999).
Cryptosporidiurrr
and
Giardia
in
wastewater can be physically removed by the
coagulation/filtration process.
Cryptosporidium
oocysts are resistant to chlorine-based
disinfectants at the concentrations and contact times practiced for water treatment
(Clancy, 2004). Chlorine has little impact on the viability of
Cryptosporidium
oocysts
when used at the relatively low doses encountered in water treatment (e.g., 5 mg/L).
Approximately 40 pcrccnt removal (0.2 log) of
Cryptosporidium
were achieved at CT
values of both 30 and 3,600 rng.min/L at pl-l; 8, a temperature of 22°C, and contact
times of 49 to 245 minutes. CT values ranging from 3,000 to 4,000 mg.min/L were
required to achieve 1-log of
Cryptosporidium
inactivation at pH 6.0 and temperature of
22°C.
One trial in which oocysts were exposed to 80 mg/L of free chlorine for 320
minutes was found to produce greater than 3-logs of inactivation (EPA, 1999).
Final
Wet&y-April 2008
78

 
Cryptosporidium
oocysts are generally more resistant to water treatment processes and
disinfection practices than other ubiquitous waterborne microorganisms.
Because of
chlorine's extremely high virus inactivation efficiency, CT values are almost always
governed by protozoa inactivation. For example, the CT values required to achieve the
recommended disinfection efficiency for conventional filtration systems (i.e., 0.5-log
Giardia
cysts and 2-log virus inactivation level) are 23 and 3 mg min/1.,, respectively
(EPA, 1999).
Protozoan cysts, specifically
Giardia
and
Cr_yptosporidhvn,
and bacteria spores are
more resistant to ozone than bacteria and viruses, although moderate degrees of
inactivation (see
Table 4-6) have been demonstrated under realistic ozonation
conditions.
It
has been reported that microorganism reactivation after ozonation is
unlikely to occur (Paraskeva and Graham, 2002).
Giardia lamblia
has sensitivity to ozone brat is similar to the. sporular form% of
Myeobacteria.
The CT product for 99 percent inactivation of
Giardia larrrblia
at 5°C is
0.53 mg min/L. Data available for inactivation of
Cr yptospor-idium
oocysts suggest that
compared to other protozoans, this microorganism is more resistant to ozone.
Cry1nosporidium
oocysts are approximately 10 times more resistant to ozone than
Giardia.
't'able
4-7 summarizes Cl' values obtained for 99%v inactivation of
Cryptosporidium
oocysts.
A wide range of CT values has been reported for the same
inactivation level, primarily because of the different methods of
Cryptosporidiurn
measurement employed and pH, temperature, and ozonation conditions. As shown in
Table 4-7, the CT requirements reported in the literature vary from study to study,
which adds uncertainty to the design of CT requirements for specific applications and
regulatory needs (EPA, 1999).
The performance of ozone with other microorganisms and parasites in wastewater
effluent is presently unclear because of the lack of sufficient studies. Some studies
Heal Wetdry-April 2008
79

 
have shown that in tests with tertiary-treated municipal effluents, ozone was very
effective towards
Pseudomon.as aeruginosa,
moderately effective toward
Giardia
lamblia,
and substantially ineffective toward
Cryptosporidium parvum
(see Table 4-8).
The low numbers of
Cryptosporidhon parvum
in the untreated effluent probably made
the results uncertain.
UV has been used for drinking water treatment in Europe since the early 1900's, but
until the rnid-1990's it was not considered to be an effective treatment for protozoan
pathogens such as
Cryptosporidiwn
(Clancy et al., 2004). Several recent studies have
shown that UV is highly effective at relatively low CiV doses (10 mJ/cin') for control of
Cryptosporidiurn.
The results of recent research indicate that both low and medium
pressure UV irradiation are very effective for inactivation of
Cryptosporidhan parvu.m.
spiked into wastewater effluent. Infectivity assays using cell culture indicated that.
inactivation levels greater than three logic can be achieved in wastewater with a UV
dose of only 3 rnYcm'. Inactivation of
Cryptosporidium
was most effective in the 250
to 270 nm range, which includes both the low and medium pressure output ranges. The
studies found that UV inactivated
Cryptosporidiurn
oocysts are not able to restore their
infectivity in cell culture hosts following exposure to either light (photoreactivation) or
dark DNA repair protocols (Clancy et al., 2004).
According to
WERF
(2005), the natural occurrence of
Cryptosporidho-n
in wastewater
is too low to allow for the determination of log inactivation from. UV exposure.
Cryptosporidium
oocysts have been reported in secondary effluent at a concentration of
140 oocysts/100L, while
Gicrrdia
cysts
were found to range from 440 to 2297
cysts/100L.
Therefore, in
most pilot-scale results, it is necessary to spike
Cryptosporidiran
into the wastewater effluent to test for levels of inactivation.
However, this may not represent the true physical state of
Cryptosporidium parvum
in
wastewater
(WERF,
2005).
Final Wetdry-April 2008
80

 
Chang et al. (1985) reported that the UV close necessary to cause 99%n inactivation of
Giardia lomblia
was within the operating range of many UV disinfection systems, but it
was beyond the usual operating dose. Neither E,
soli
or fecal coliform can serve as a
quantitative
model for disinfection of protozoa or viruses.
According to Chang et al.
(1985), the extreme resistance of
Giardia latnblia
makes it unlikely that normal UV
irradiation procedures would be sufficient to destroy the cysts.
Use of multiple disinfectants in series can be an effective strategy for inactivation of the
wide range of pathogen types found in wastewater
.
An approach that utilizes UV
disinfection followed
by free chlorine dosing and subsequent formation of
monochloramine
(
due to ammonia in the wastewater
) along, with a long CT
should be
capable of achieving significant inactivation of most microorganisms within a practical
range of UV and free chlorine/monochloramine doses (Clancy, 2004). Extended CT
with chlorine was also found to be effective in achieving inactivation of particle-
associated coliform bacteria in wastewater.
However, the formation of chlorinated by-
products may be a concern (Clancy, 2004).
4.5.3
Virus
Disinfection
Efficiency
Although viruses cannot replicate outside their host's cells and
,
therefore, cannot
multiply in
the environment
,
they can survive for several months in fresh water and for
shorter periods in marine water. Their survival in the environment is prolonged at low
temperatures and in the presence of sediments
,
onto
which they easily adsorb.
Exposure to sunlight, higher temperatures
,
and high microbial activity will shorten the
survival of enteric viruses
.
Low dose infectivity,
long-term survival
,
and relatively low
inactivation or removal efficiency by conventional wastewater treatment are some of
their key disinfection characteristics
(
Lazarova and Savoye, 2004).
Mimi weudry
-
Agri( 2008
81

 
There are several important characteristics associated
with virus disinfection
(Thurston-Enriquez, et al., 2003; Thurston-Enricluez, et al., 2003a; Lazarova and
Savoye, 2004):
1.
There have been several studies dealing with viral inactivation.
The
inactivation of viruses has been shown to be a first-order type, and
Chick's law type equations can be used to describe the viral inactivation.
2.
Viruses are more resistant to chloramination than the coliform bacteria
and are one of the most resistant targets of UV disinfection,
3.
Viruses have a low infectious dose and represent a range of illnesses.
4.
Viruses are used as a target organism for designing disinfection systems
in soiree applications. For example, California Title 22 is focused on virus
inactivation.
5.
The dose-response function for rotaviruses has been used in drinking
water risk assessment.
6.
Adenoviruses are the most resistant to UV disinfection and are found in
high concentrations in municipal wastewater.
Enteric viruses are extremely small microorganisms that multiply only in the
gastrointestinal tract of humans and other animals. Enteric viruses cannot multiply in
the environment, but they survive longer in water than most intestinal bacteria and are
more infectious and resistant to disinfection than
most other microorganisms.
Wastewater treatment that does not include a disinfection step is relatively inefficient
at removing viruses. In contaminated surface water, levels of 1-100 culturable enteric
viruses per liter are common. In less polluted surface water, their numbers are closer
to 1-10 per 100L (Health Canada, 2004).
Removal or inactivation of enteric viruses depends on two factors-their physical
characteristics and their susceptibility to disinfection. The removal and inactivation of
Mimi Wetdry-April 2008
82

 
some enteric viruses fronn raw water are
complicated by their small size
and relative
resistance to commonly used disinfectants such as chloramines.
From pilot-scale experiments started in 1998 by the Monterey Regional Water
Pollution Control Agency, it was found that a 54og removal of enteric viruses was
achieved, mostly during the chlorine disinfection step (Nelson, et al., undated). Table
4-9 presents a summary of CT values for the inactivation of selected viruses by
various disinfectants at 5°C:.
Based on the results in Table 4-9, it is apparent that
ozone, free chlorine and chlorine dioxide are much better disinfectants than
chloramines. However, ozone may be unreliable when turbidity is high or variable,
because viruses are protected in flocculated particles (Health Canada, 2004).
According to Thurston-Enriyuez, et al. (2003a), dispersed adenoviruses and
Caliciviruses
would be inactivated by commonly used free chlorine concentrations of
Inxg/L and contact times (60 to 237 inin) applied for drinking water treatment in the
United States.
However, higher
CT
values
may be required for viruses that are
aggregated and associated with organic and inorganic matter in the environment.
Inactivation rates of these viruses were reported in the range of 2 to 4 log.
Wastewater disinfection with chlorine, UV or ozone can significantly reduce the virus
load (see 'f'able 4-9).
However, UV light disinfection is not as efficient at inactivating
viruses as the more traditional chlorine-based disinfection processes (Health Canada,
2004).
Both
Caliciviruses
and enteric adenoviruses are on EPA's Drinking Contaminant
Candidate List (C.`CL). These viruses are on the C:C:L for regulatory consideration since
little to no information regarding health effects, nor analytical methods are currently
available.
Limited information regarding the effectiveness of L1V radiation on the
inactivation of
Caliciviruses
and enteric adenoviruses is available.
Adenoviruses are
Final
Wetdry-April 2008
81

 
believed to occur in greater concentrations in wastewater than other enteric viruses.
Adenoviruses are more resistant to UV tight disinfection compared to enteric viruses or
spore forming bacteria.
Human adenovirus type 40 is the most UV light-resistant
enteric virus reported to date. The greater resistance of adenoviruses is attributed to the
fact that they contains double-stranded DNA and are able to use the host cell enzymes
to repair damages in the DNA caused by UV irradiation. Double-stranded DNA viruses
are likely the most resistant viruses to UV light disinfection. Consideration should be
given to the resistance of adenoviruses to UV light disinfection when appropriate doses
for the control of waterborne viruses are being determined (Gerba et al., 2002).
Research on the inactivation of adenovirus type 2 by
UV light
has been conducted with
starting concentrations ranging from 2 x 107 to 1 x 1(P per mi. The results indicate that
for a 90
,
99, 99.9, and 99.99
%
inactivation
,
the following UV exposure dosages were
required: 40
,
78, 119, and 160 rnW/cm2 (Gerba et al., 2002).
Adenoviruses are extremely resistant to UV disinfection, compared with other enteric
viruses (Meng and Gerba, 1996).
Analysis of human
Calicivirus
resistance to
disinfection is hampered by the lack of animal or cell culture methods that can
determine the viruses' infectivity.
UV disinfection experiments were carried out in
treated groundwater with Feline
Calicivirus
(FCV) and adenovirus type 40 (AD40).
AD40 was more resistant than FCV. The doses of UV required to achieve 99%n
inactivation of AD40 and 1,CV were 109 and 16 mJlcm2, respectively. The reported
doses needed to inactivate 90% of AD40 ranged from 30 to 50 mJ/cm2. The reported
dose needed to inactivate 99.99% of AD40 ranged from 124 to 203 (extrapolated value)
mJ/cm7. The results of this study show that, if FCV is an adequate surrogate for human
Calic:iviruses,
then their inactivation by UV radiation is similar to those of other single-
stranded RNA enteric viruses, such as poliovirus (Thurston-Enriquez et at., 2003).
Meng and Gerba (1996) had reported 30 and 124 mJ/cm' UV dosages for 90 and 99%
inactivation of AD40, respectively.
Final lvcuiry-Argil 2008
84

 
As a result of its high level of resistance to UV treatment, adenovirus is being
considered by the U.S. EPA as the basis for establishing UV light inactivation
requirements for enteric viruses (Gerba et al., 2002).
A multi-disinfectant strategy
involving UV light as the primary disinfectant followed by a secondary disinfectant.
(free chlorine) may prove to be most effective in controlling enteric viruses, as well as
other microorganisms (Health Canada, 2004).
The UV
doses commonly applied for water and wastewater treatment are between 30
and 40 niJ/cji^ , and the National Science Foundation (NSF) has increased UV water
treatment standards for class A point-of-entry and point-of-use to 40 rnJ/cm2
(
American
National Standards Institute/NSF Standard 55
).
Under these standards, and as
discussed above, FCV would be reduced by more than 99.99
%
in water supplies.
Higher doses would be required to reduce AD40, since 40 mJ/Om2 would riot be
adequate for even 90
%
reduction
(
Thurston-Enriquez
,
et al., 2003).
In a study involving five U.S. wastewater facilities, a eoliphage (F specific and somatic)
concentration estimate of 75.6 plaque forming units (PFU)/TOOL was used as an
average value in a 12-month study of a full-scale facility's secondary effluent. This
coiiphage concentration was combined with experimentally measured logs() reductions
achieved via UV disinfection and chlorination in bench-scale exposure studies of
indigenous coliphage. Table 4-10 summarizes the results.
Water quality characteristics
in each facility likely impacted the coliphage inactivation.
The inactivation was also
dependent on the type of bacterial host used
(WERF,
2005).
In the case of UV
disinfection, doses of 10 and 20 rnJ/crrr2 are representative of UV exposure scenarios to
be applied in municipal wastewater treatment facilities.
Coliphagc inactivation by
disinfection ranged from 0.32 log,() to 3.61 logy) units and was generally greater when
using UV than with chlorine. As shown in 'T'able 4-10, facilities A, I3, and D achieved
Final Weidry-April 2008
85

 
the greatest reductions via UV, while facilities C and E achieved greaten or equivalent
coliphage reductions by use of chlorine.
Little information is available regarding the effectiveness of ozone on the inactivation
of Caliciviruses
and enteric adenoviruses.
CT values for a 4-lo0 g (99.99%) ozone
inactivation at PC and pH 7, ranged from 0.07 to 0.60 mglL min for AD40 and <0.01
to
0.03 rngll.
min for FCV (Thorston-Enriquez et al., 2005).
However, these
experiments were carried out in buffered, disinfectant demand free water.
These
conditions may not be representative of treated wastewater.
4.6
St
immary and
Conclusions
Decisions regarding the need for effluent disinfection must be made on a site-specific
basis.
According to
WERF
(2005), disinfection is warranted in situations where direct
hurr>an contact in the immediate vicinity of an outfall is possible or where effluent is
discharged to areas involving the production of human food. Disinfection is warranted
in situations
where its application leads to a reduction in the risk of disease
transmission.
As illustrated by post-disinfection regrowth of bacteria, relatively poor
virucidal behavior, and generation of persistent DBPs, it is not clear that wastewater
disinfection always yields improved effluent or receiving water quality
(WERF,
2005).
The effectiveness of the following disinfection technologies were evaluated for the risk
assessment study:
UV
• Qzonation
ChlorinationfDechlorination
The effectiveness of disinfection is a complex function of several variables including
type and dose of disinfectant, type and concentration of microorganisms, contact time,
final
Weldry-April 2008
86

 
and water quality characteristics. In most cases pilot-studies and other considerations
guide the selection process.
If available, published data regarding pathogen inactivation achieved by disinfection
are typically used to estimate the concentration of pathogens in disinfected
wastewater.
A
summary
of
disinfection
efficiency
data
for
chlorinationldechlorination, UV, and ozonation are presented in 'T'able 4-11 for the
microbial pathogens of this study. Based on the information presented in the previous
sections, the following conclusions can be drawn about the disinfection effectiveness:
1.
Fecal coliforms, when used as an indicator, may overestimate disinfection
efficacy or microbial duality of disinfected samples, since they are
relatively susceptible to common disinfectants and they have a higher die-
off rate than other microorganisms.
2.
To evaluate if disinfection is effective in reducing bacterial risk, it is
necessary to consider re-growth and pathogen ratio.
3.
Chlorine is an extremely effective
disinfectant
for inactivating
bacteria.
4.
UV irradiation and chlorination/dechiorination, when applied with the
goal of complying with conventional effluent discharge regulations, are
similar in terms of their ability to inactivate water-borne bacteria.
5.
The conditions that are used to accomplish indicator bacteria inactivation
based on chlorinationldechlorination are relatively ineffective for control
of waterborne viruses.
6.
Both pilot-plant studies and results from operating plants have shown that
ozone effectively removes fecal and total coliforms, as well as enteric
viruses from secondary effluents.
7.
F. soli
is one of the most sensitive types of bacteria to ozone disinfection
and a 4 log reduction (99.99 percent removal) in E. coli can be achieved.
Final WOdryApril 2008
87

 
S,
Significant differences in ozone disinfection efficiency have been found
among
E.coli
and other pathogens such as
Salmonella,
which are all
sensitive to ozone inactivation.
9.
Sporular bacteria forms are always far more
resistant
to
ozone
disinfection than vegetative forms, but all are easily destroyed by
relatively low levels of ozone.
10.
An important factor affecting long-term disinfection efficacy is re-growth
potential.
After disinfection, some sub-lethally damaged bacteria may be
able to repair disinfectant-induced damage. Together with organisms that
retain viability following disinfection, it is possible for the microbial
community to re-grow.
11.
"Dark" (non-photochemical) repair following; UV irradiation may play an
important role relative to the re-growth potential of UV disinfected
microbial samples. Similarly, "dark" repair mechanisms may also play a
role in the fate of chlorinated microbial samples.
12.
Chlorine has been shown to have limited success inactivating protozoa.
The resistance of
Giardia
cysts has been reported to be two orders of
nragnitude higher than that of enteroviruses and more than three orders of
magnitude higher than the enteric bacteria.
13.
Chlorine has little impact on the viability of
Cryptosporidium
oocysts
when used at the relatively low doses encountered in water treatment
(e.g., 5 mg/L).
14.
Giardia
and
Cryptosporidiuin
are
more resistant to ozone than bacteria
and viruses
,
although
moderate
degrees of inactivation have been
demonstrated under realistic ozonation conditions,
15.
Reactivation o1'
Giardia
and
Cryptosporidium
after ozonation is unlikely
to occur.
r=inal Weatry-April 2008
88

 
16.
The performance of ozone with protozoa in wastewater effluents is
unclear because of the lack of sufficient studies.
17.
UV is highly effective for control of
Cryptosporidium.
18.
UV inactivated
Cryptosporidiwn
oocysts are not able to restore their
infectivity in cell culture host following exposure to either light
(photoreactivation) or dark DNA repair protocols.
19.
Removal or inactivation of enteric viruses depends on two factors--their
physical characteristics and their susceptibility to disinfection.
The
removal and inactivation of some enteric viruses from raw water are
complicated by their small
size and
relative resistance to commonly used
disinfectants such as chloramines.
20.
Wastewater disinfection with chlorine, UV, or ozone can significantly
reduce the virus load.
However, UV light disinfection is not as efficient
at inactivating viruses as the more traditional chlorine-based disinfection
processes, especially adenoviruses.
The inactivation of viruses depends
on the UV dosage and whether they are dispersed or aggregated in the
wastewater.
21.
Limited information regarding the effectiveness
of UV
radiation on the
inactivation of
Caliciviruses
and enteric adenoviruses is available.
22.
Adenoviruses are believed to occur in greater concentrations in
wastewater than other enteric viruses. Adenoviruses are more resistant to
UV light disinfection compared to other enteric viruses or spore forming
bacteria.
Human adenovirus type 40 is the most UV light-resistant enteric
virus reported.
The greater resistance of adenoviruses type 40 was
attributed to the fact that it contains double-stranded DNA and is able to
use the host cell enzymes to repair damages in the DNA caused by UV
irradiation,
Consideration should be given to the resistance of
Final weulry-April 2008
89

 
adenoviruses
to UV
light disinfection when appropriate doses for the
control of waterborne viruses are being determined.
23.
Adenoviruses are extremely resistant to UV disinfection, compared with
other enteric viruses.
As a result of its high level of resistance to UV
treatment, adenovirus is being considered by the U.S. EPA as the basis for
establishing UV light inactivation requirements for enteric viruses.
24.
Analysis of human
Calicivir-u.s
resistance to disinfection is hampered by
the lack of animal or cell culture methods that can determine the viruses'
infectivity.
However, its resistance is believed to be similar to ether
single-stranded RNA viruses.
In summary, the information summarized above indicates great variability in the
performance and uncertainty in the efficacy of disinfection.
There are many
unanswered questions with respect to disinfection efficiency data for microbial
indicators and pathogens.
Many of the studies cited in the previous sections were
bench-scale or pilot-scale experiments and not full-scale operations.
Therefore, it is
uncertain if disinfection designed to remove indicators can be effective in the removal
of pathogens and in the reduction of pathogen risks.
In
applying any disinfectant, it is important to strike a balance between risks
associated with microbial pathogens and those associated with DBPs.
DBPs are
persistent chemicals, some of which have relevant toxicological characteristics.
The
inventory of DBPs that have the potential to cause adverse health effects is large and
highly variable among POTW effluents. Certain organic constituents in wastewater
form chlorination by-products including chloroform, and chlorinated aliphatic and
aromatic compounds. THMs, mainly CHC13, CH13rC12, C Br2Cl, and CHB173 account
for the majority of by-products on a weight basis. Haloacetic acids are the next most
significant fraction, accounting for about 25% of disinfection by-products; aldehydes
account for about 7% of disinfection by-products (Viessman and Hammer, 1993;
Final WetdryApril 2008
90

 
EPA, 1999).
By-products such as aldehydes
,
ketones, acids, and other species can be
formed upon ozonation of wastewater
.
UV disinfection results in the formation of
negligible DBPs.
Bisulfite is a common dechlorination reagent used
.
The reactions between bisulfite
and free chlorine
,
or bisulfitc
(S[lVJ) and inorganic
combined chlorine are
extremely
rapid.
However
,
less is known about the
kinetics of reactions
between bisulfite and
organic combined
chlorine. Studies
have indicated that some
organic chloramines are
recalcitrant
to S(TV).-based dechlorination and may cause
toxicity in dechlorinated
wastewater effluent.
The human health effects associated with chemical contaminants that are influenced or
produced as a result of disinfection operations tend to be chronic in nature. 'T
'
herefore,
the development of a risk assessment for exposure to chemical constituents, including
DBPs, is far more complex than the microbial risk assessment. Risk assessments of
wastewater disinfection should consider microbial and chemical duality. The health
effects of disinfectants are generally evaluated by epidemiological studies and/or
toxicological studies using laboratory animals
(
WERF
,
2005).
4.7 _References
Andrew, R., 2005,
"Ultraviolet Water Disinfection: It's All Abou
t the
.Dose", Water
Conditioning
& Purification,
May.
Chang, J.C.H., S.F. Ossoff, D.C. Lobe, M.H. Dorfman, C. Dumais, R.G. Qualls, and
J.D. Johnson,
1955,
"11V Inactivation of Pathogenic
and Indicator
Microorganisms,"
Applied and Environmental Microbiology, June, p. 1.361-
1365.
Clancy, J.L., Linden, K.G., and McCuin, R.M., 2004,
"Cryptosporidium Occurrence in
Wastewaters and Control Using UV Disinfection", IUVA News,
Vol. 6, No. 3,
September,
Final Wc[dryApril 2008
91

 
EPA, 1999,
Alternative
T)isinfectant
.s
and Oxidants Guidance Manual,
EPA 815-R-99-
014, April.
EPA, 2002,
The Occurrence of Disinfection By-Products (DBPs) of Heath Concern in
Drinking Water: Results of a Nationwide DBP Occurrence Study,
EPA/600/R-
02/068, September.
EPA, 2003,
Ultraviolet Disinfection Guidance
Manual,
EP
A 815-D-03-007, Office of
Water, June.
Falwell J
. et at, 1997.
"Disinfection Tay-Products in Drinking Water: Critical
Issues in
Health Effects
Research
. "
Environmental Health Perspectives
. Volume 105,
Number
1. January.
Finch G
.
R. et al. 1993.
"Ozone Inactivation
of Crypto
.sporidiutn parvurn in Demand-
T{ree IahosPlaate
Buffer
Determined by In Vitro Excystatior. and Animal
Infectivity
. "
Applied and Environmental Microbiology
..
Vol. 59, No. 12. Pages
4203-4205. December.
Gerba, C.P.,
Gramos,
D.M., Nwachuku
, N.,
2002,
"Comparative Inactivation of
En.teroviruses
and Adenoviru.s 2 by UV Light", Applied
and Environmental
Microbiology,
pp. 5167-5169, Vol. 68, No. 10, October.
Health. Canada,
2004,
"Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water- Quality: Supporting
Documentation-Enteric Viruses",
April.
Jensen, J.S., 1997
,
"
Chemical Studies to Understand the Dechlorination Process Used
at Wastewater Treatment Plants", Fiscal Year 1996
A
nnual Report
for U.S.
Department of the Interior Geological Survey 1.y Water Resources Research
Center University cif Maryland College Park, Maryland.
Lazarova, V. and Savoye, P., 2004,
"Technical and Sanitary Aspects of Wastewater
Disinfection by UV Irradiation For Landscape Irrigation", Water Science and
Technology,
Vol. 50, No. 2, pages 203-209.
Lue-Hing, C., 2005. Personal Communication with Chrisa Petropoulou of Geosyntec
Consultants, October.
Mena;,
Q,S,
and Ger'ba, C.P., 1996,
"Comparative inactivation of enteric
adenovirus,
pol
iovirus, and coldllhages by
ultraviolet
irradiation
",
Water Resources,
30:2665-2668.
Metcalf & Eddy, 1991,
Wastewater Engineering-Treatment Disposal Reuse,
Third
Edition, McGraw Hill, Inc., New York.
Final WadryApcil 2(K)8
92

 
Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago (MWRDGQ, 2005, Final
Disinfection Study; Submitted by C'I'E/AECOM, MWRDGC Project No. 04-
014-2P, August,
Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago
(
MWRDGC), 2005,
"Killing
Coliform
.s",
Research. and Development News,
January.
Montgomery, J.M., 1985,
Water Treatment Principles and Design,
John Wiley & Sons,
Inc., New York,
Nelson
,
K., Sheikh
.,
E., Cooper
,
R.C., Holden
,
R., and Israel, K., undated
,
"Efficacy Qf
Pathogen Removal During Full-.Scale Operation
of Water°
Reuse Facililie.s in
Monterey
,
California."
Paraskeva
,
P.
and Graham
,
N, J.D., 2002,
"Ozonation r3,f' Municipal
Wastewater
Effluents",
Water Environ
m
ent Research
,
Vol. 74, No. 6, November/December.
Sedlak, D.L., and Pehlivanoglou, 2004,
"The Speciation and Reactivity of Wastewater-
Derived Organic Nitrogen",
University of California Water Resources Center -
Technical Completion Reports.
Thurston-Enriquez
,
J.A.,
Haas, C.N., Jacangeio, J
.,
Riley, K
.,
and Gerba
,
C.P., 2003,
"Inactivation of p'eline Calicivirus and Adenovirus Type 4
0 by UV
Radiation",
Applied and Environmental Microbiology,
pp. 577-582
,
Vol. 69, No. 1,
January.
Thurston-Enriquez
, J.A., Haas, C.N.,
Jacangelo,
J., Gerba, C.P,, 2003a,
"Chlorine
Inactivation
of Adenoviru.s Type 40 and Feline Calicivirus, "
Applied and
Environmental
Microbiology, pp. 3979-85, Vol. 69, No. 7, July.
Thurston-Enriquez, J.A., Haas, C.N., Jacangelo, J., Gerba, C:.P., 2005, Inactivation of
Enteric Adenovirus and Feline Calicivirus by Ozone, Water Resources, pp.
3650-6, Vol. 39, No. 15.
Viessman,W, and M. J. Hammer. 1993. Water Supply and Pollution Control. Fifth
Edition. I-IarperCollins College Publishers. New York.
Water Efivirownent Research Foundation
(
WERP ,
2005
,
"Effects of
Wastewater
Disinfection on Human Health."
99-HHE•-1.
Final
Wetdry-April 2008
91

 
SECTION 4
'T'ABLES

 
Table 4-1.
Summary
of Disinfectant Characteristics
(
Adapted from
EPA, 1999; Montgomery 1950
Characteristics
Free Chlorine
Chlorarnines
Chloride Dioxide
Ozone
Ultraviolet Radiation
Disinfection
Excellent (as HOQ
Moderate
E
!
-Bacteria
Excellent (as HOC])
Poor (food a€ low contact
Excellent
Excellent
Good
-Viruses
ti
mes)
Excellent
Excellent
Good
PH influence
Efficiency decreases with
Dichloramine predominates
Slightly more
Residuals last longer at
insensitive
increase in pH
at pH 5 and below;
efficient at higher
low pH
rnonochloramine
pH
predominates at pH7 and
above- Overall, relatively
independent of pH.
Effluent Disinfectant
Yes
Yes
Yes
Residual
By-products
-THM Formation
Yes
Unlikely
Unlikely
-Other
Uncharacterized and
Unknown
Chlorinated aromatic
oxidated intermediates;
compounds;
chloramines; chlorophenois
chlorate chlorite
Experience
Widespread use
Widespread use in the U.S.
Widespread use in
Europe; limited
use in the U.S.
Yes, but it dcgrades
No
rapidly
Unlikely
Unlikely
Aldehydes; aromatic
Unknown
carboxylic acids;
phthalates
Widespread use in
Use limited to small
Europe and Canada;
systems
limited in the U.S.

 
Table 4-2. List of DBPs
and Disinfection Residuals
(EPA, 1999)
DISINFECTANT RESIDUALS
Free Chlorine
Hypochlorous Acid
Hypochlorite Ion
Chloramines
Monochloramine
Dichloramine
`ITrichloramine
Chlorine Dioxide
INORGANIC BY-PRODUCTS
Chlorate Ion'
Chlorite Ion'
Bromate Ions' b
Iodate Iona, b
Hydrogen Peroxideb
Ammonia'
ORGANIC OXIDATION BY-PRODUCTS
Aldehydes
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Glyoxal
Hexanal
Heptanal
Carboxylic Acids
Hexanoic Acid
Heptanoic Acid
Oxalic Acid
Assimilable Organic Carbon
Notes;
HALOGENATED ORGANIC BY-PRODUCTS
Trihalomethanes
Chlorofortn
Brotnodichloromethanc
Dibromochloromethane
Bromoform
Haloacetic Acids
Monochloroacetic Acid
Dichloroacetic Acid
Trichloroacetic Acid
Monobromoacetic Acid
Dibromoacetic Acid
llaloacetonitriles
Dichloroacetronitrile
B ro moclil oro acetoni tri le
Dibromoacetonitrile
Tricliloroacetonitri le
lialoketones
1,1 -Dichlompropanone
1,1,1 -Trichloropt•opanone
Chforophenols
2-Chlorophenol
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2,4,6 -Trick loropheno l
Cliloropicrin
Chloral Hydrate
Cyanogen Cliloride
N-Organochloramines
MX
C
a.
DBP clue to chlorine dioxide disinfection
b.
DBP clue to ozone disinfection
c.
3-Ch1oro-4-(dichlorornethy))•5-hydroxy-2(5H)-furanone

 
Table 4-3, Status of Health
Information for Disinfectants and DBPs (EP
A, 1999)
CONTAMINANT -_M
-
CANCER CLASSIFICATION
Chloroform
B2
Bronlodichlorolltethane
B2
Dibromochloromethane
- -•
-
-.
..-._.,-.__-
C
I3rotnn€orm
_-- -- ---- -
B2
Monochloroacetic Acid
-
Dichloroacctic Acid
B2
Trichloroacetic Acid
w
C
^
Dichloroacetonitrile
_
C
Bromochloroacetonitrile
Dibromoacetonitrilc
C
-
Trichloroacetonitrile
-
- -
1,1 -Dichloropropanone
-
3 , l ,1-`t'rielllorop)'opanone
.
_^
.
.,
.
.
-
.
..
.
.
^
.
-
2-Chiorophenol --.--..-_-_.____..._...^._
l.)
2,4-Dichlorophenol
D
2,4,6-Trichiorophenol
B2
C1110ropio•itt
Chloral t-lydrate
-
C
_.
Cyaaogen Chloride ^.._...._...-....-..w.Y,-^__..-__
Formaldehyde
B I t7'
Chlorate
C1llnri te ._._.,_.._^m.-.,w..^..^......-.._^._n_..w^
- -
-
D --
Brolnate --
-^
-_--.
--
B2
_ __ _ _
-
r
Ammonia
D
Hypocltlorous Acid
__
^-
Hypochlorite
---•-- ---
Monochloramine
-
Clllorlne
Diox
i
de
D
The scheme for categorizing ehernical according to their carcinogenic
potential is as follows:x
Group A_ Human Carcinogen
Sufficient evidence in cpidesnioiogic studies to support
causal association between exposure and cancer.
Group B: Probable Human Carcinogen
-
[,incited evidence in epiderniologic studies( Crroup 131)
and/or sufficient evidence from animal studies (Group
Ell)
Group C: Possible llun)an Carcinogen
M Limited evidence from animal swdies and inadequate or
no data it) humans
Group D: Not Classifiable Y
inadequate or no human and animal evidence of -
w
carcinogenicity
_
Group E: No Evidence of Carcinogenicity for Humans
No evidence of carcinogenicity in at least two adequate
animal tests in different species m in adequate
epidemioiogic and animal studies.
EPA is in the process of revising the Cancer Guidelines Source
-
")
Based on inhalation exposure
-----

 
Table 4-4. Principal Known By-products of Ozonation
(Adapted from EPA, 1999)
DIS'I'NFECT
N B -7PROD C
Aldehydes
Acetaldehyde
' Glyoxa^
Metbyl Glyoxai
Oxalic acid
S:u.bi'n*<aciri
Fomcdc acid
^:^Ct1Ca4%iC^
Aldo- and
.
Ketoacids
PyTw
is t cid
Bromi€€ ttcd
By-pۥoducts*
Brornoform
01
zronrzznated acetic aus'
Brornopicrin
i^omxiiated aee^on^triles;
*Brominated ley-products are produced only in waters containing bromide ion

 
TYPE.OF
EFFL ENT
F'EC'TION
03 DOSE
Secondary
7-14
^econt^a
Raw
2--4
'T'able 4-5. Ozone Disinfection Studies Involving Indicator Bacteria
(adapted from
Paraskeva and Graham, 2002)
CONTACT
TIME
(rnin)
5
20
RFSTI
AW,
OZONE
(^3gILi'
0.05
0.1-0.4
0Z' 0;
TYPE.OF :
MICRO-,
ORGANIS .
INITIAL
CONCEN-
:
TRATION
(CFCi10
0 nnL
5.2x 103-8.5x 105
0.7x 103-5.0x 143
4.0x 105_9.0x 146
x i
2.4 - 3.7 x 106
0.2--4.0x 145
0.32 x 10' - 8.0 x 102
0--1.3 x 10z
0.1 -2.6 x 143
4.1 - 1.0 x 104
3.6 - 7.0 x 102
FS
Tertiary (sand
filtration)
3
oixdary
9:5
Nitrified.-..

 
Table
4-5. Ozone-Disinfection Studies Involving Indicator Bacteria-(coat.)
(Adapted
from Paraskeva and Graham, 2042)
TYPE OF
EFFLUENT
DISIN
-
FECTION
03 DOSE
(rng/L)
CONTACT
TIM
E (min).
RESIDUAL
OZONE
(mg/L)
TYPF OF
MICRO-
ORGANIS'E'.
INITIAL
CONCEN-
TRATION
(CFU/14(1 mL.) '
FINAL CONCEN_
TRATION
(CFU/100
raQ
LOG ,
RFDUC
TION:.
Secondary
10
n/a'
EC
11!«
n/,
-:5
Storm drain
10-20
n/a
0.1-1
water
ecorida
1-15.
IV a
FC
<200
€t,:a
Filtered
3-5
n/a
n/a
FC
n/a
<200
n/a
nitrified
Secondary
a
'I'C
A 0'0°.
x 14'
`^larified
Filtered
n/a
TC
0.8 x 10°
0.9 x 102
clarified
Secondary
4-6
1=1()
02-048
E
i
x
W
-
x R
x
4
'1'C
310x 10 -15 x 3058,0
1.5 x 10
Secondary
S^dar` `
lti
tfa
FC
1
x x0
'
x 104.')
<I.s) x 101
.
Tertiary
n/a
EC
1 x 102.7
-,
I
x 1W.5
<1.0 x 1©'
Note:
FC = fecal
coliforms
;
FS = fecal streptococci; TC = total coli form, and EC = R
coii
; h
n/a = not available

 
Table
4-6. Inactivation of Microorganisms by Pilot-Scale Ozonation
(Adapted
from Paraskeva and Graham, 2002)
MICROORGANISM
Bacillus
sutbtilis
endospores
pfosjuridiura parum
occy5ts
Cryptosporidiwn muris
oocysts
arclra rrturas
ooe sts
Poliovirus 1
Note:
TUTIMP
ERAT-CTRE'
25.0 ± 1.0
PH
8.40. 0.11
57 ^-0.29
cr
(m& IW
0.70-18.35
8.05±0
.17
0.19-2.49
LOQI IN'ACTIA' ATI.ONV RANGE
0-2.17
0.36 -
2.56
132- 27
1.43-3-85
'Concentration x time (CT) product, based on integrated dissolved ozone concentration values (C) and theoretical residence time (t).

 
Table
4-7.
Sum
m
ary of Reported Ozonation Requirements For 99 Percent Inactivation of
Cryptosporidiunt parrum
Oocysts
(Adapted from EPA, 1999)
Batch liquid/batch
ozoTle
Batch l^quztl^at^
.
1^ oscine.
Batch liquidibatch ozone
ozone
Flow through
conta.c'orlcotitinuous
ozolae
Ozone
Residualim
to
Lo
5 and 10
25
5-10
Contac
t time
(ruin)
Temperature ('Q
CT tMg rttin/L)

 
Table 4-8. Reduction of Selected Pathogens by Ozone
(
15-Mg
OYL
Dose, 10 Minutes
) i
n Tertiary Municipal Effluents
(Adapted from
Paraskeva and Graham, 2002)
Pseudr^»x^na
.s cieriginosa.
,
(C-FUY 3.00-niL
Giardia larnblia
cysts (couut/L)
C ry
rDSporadirun par^errt caucyst;
t couzfl}
No[e:
'CL = clarified and F = clarified and filtered

 
Table 4.9. Summar
y of CT Values For 99%Q (2-Log)
Inactivation
of Selected
Viruses by Various Disinfectants At 5°C
Paliovtrus;;l''"
Rotavims
Ba6terlopfage
(Adapted from Health
Canada, 2004)
C'1'""S?AiTESIE3
99°IG
{2-T.pG)"TNA.CTIVATIaN.
FRET?Clz I
NHzCI
C'0.2
^)l
6-7
I
li
018 9
0.01-0.05
3806-6476
. 0$-0 18;.
0.2-2.1
'ND = not determined

 
Table 4-10. LOGto Reductions Achieved for Coliphage During Disinfection of
Secondary Effluent by UV Irradiation and Chlorination
(Adapted from
WERF,
2005)
LQG`>:o
I
R
Eni,JCTI(?NS:O
' C4L W AGI+.
T
FACILiTY
IDENT F I ,R
T.^'V'
Dose
(
x^
_
ictn
. °},
^
('
Iori^ie
lx
cai^tact
_ ._.
time (n^i^^j
(P
Orr)
S
1D
0
T
^3U.
E
(E, coli)1
0.47
0.94
1.88
1.81.
3.61
(F+amp)
0.68
1.37
2.74
r.
B
0.58
1.75
3.51
0.25
0.5
(E. (-oli)!
0.59
1.19
2.38
0.13
0,26
(F+amp)
C
(L'. coli)1
0.42
U.$4
1.69
0.78
1.56
(F+atnp)1
D
(E. soli)
0.69
1.37
2.74
0.32
0.64
(F+amp)
0.43
0.87
(E. coli)1
a.
64
1.27
2.54
0.3
0,59
(F+amp)
0.36
0.73
1,45
0.26
0,52
Mean.
E. soli
0.61
],21
2.42
0.3'1
0.75
F+atnp
0.49
0.99
1.97
0.25
a.5
__
Mote:
'Exposurc colldue€Cd in a well-mixed batch rcar;tor under a collimated beam.
bExI3U5Ul'C
CUr3(kUCICCk
in
fl
well- mixed
k?a
€C}] t'F:aClV1'
with an rnltlc3k
Cklk(7['ihe [:ORCCnti'at€0[1
of ?.Q
1ngIL (as
Cl,)

 
Table
4-11. Summary of Pathogen Disinfection Efficiencies
Path©6e
^ coli
Pseudlomonas aeruginosa
-a mo -11a
Enterococci
Cryptosporidium
txiardla.>`
T
Notes:
Calicivirus
nter
ic
iruse<
enO17H.Us
416g'.
(1)
EPA (1999)
(2)
Paraskeva and Graham (2002)
(3)
Clancy (2004)
(4)
Nelson et al. (undated)
(5)
Health Canada (2004)
(6)
Gerba et al. (2002)
(7)
Thurston-Enriquez et al. (2003)
ate ); 1 31ag 4-5
log (Nte)
2 log (Note 2)
4' ;log (Note l) ` .
Not Available
0.57 lob-
2.67 lob
(
Note
57 log
2 7 dog {Note 2)
'
;;
^ log,(Nate:
2 log (Note 5)
4"fag
(Dote ^). .
^^entecu^n
41og`(Nafie 8)
4 log (Note S)
44N
.
1U).
Not Available
3 Iog, (Note 3)
I log;(Nate:10
0 32:10 3:61 log (.Note
4 log (Note 7)
1':log
41og (Dote. 6
o^ari^t^on
/
^eelrt^^l^at^on :;^
^- Iog (Note;)
> 4 log (Note 8)
lat Available
More resistant than
E. coli
(Note 8)
0.
2
log-3log (Note l
^:^ lay
(^Ott?.:1'l
51og (Note tll
2 log (Note 5)
log,^l4ate.^ I
(8)
IVERF (2005)
(9)
Thurston-Enriquez et al. (2005); results obtained in
buffered disinfectant demand free water at 5°C and pig 7.
These conditions may not be representative of wastewater.
(10)
Chang et al. (1995)
(11)
Thurston-Enriquez et al. (2003a)

 
SECTION 4
FIGURES

 
Geosyntec°
consultants
Figure 4-1. Conceptual Representation of the Possible Fates of Bacteria
Disinfectant Exposure
No change in total bacteria concentration
\
Regrowth
In total bacteria concentration
P : pathogenic bacteria concentration
V : non-pathogenic bacteria concentration
Note:
0 : disinfection has positive effect
: disinfection has no effect
Ea : disinfection
has adverse effect
CJ : more information
is needed
1
Disinfection is considered to be antibacterially "effective" when the risk of human exposure to bacteria is
reduced.
Moving from left to right, the columns represent circumstances of no regrowth, regrowth, and
decline in the total bacterial population, respectively.
Moving from top to bottom, the rows represent
circumstances in which the fraction of the bacterial population comprised of pathogenic bacteria does not
change, increases, and decreases, respectively.
Together, these two attributes (regrowth of the total
bacterial population and changes in the fraction of pathogenic bacteria) determine the effectiveness of
disinfection relative to human exposure to bacteria (adapted from
WCRI,
2005).

 
GeOSyntecp
consultants
5.0
MICROBIAL RISK ASSESSEMENT
Quantitative
microbial risk assessment,
(
QMRA
)
was initially employed to assess the
risks from microorganisms in drinking water
(
Haas, 1983; Regli
et at.
1991).
These
methods were later adopted by the EPA to assess the safety of water supplies and
establish criteria (based on
Giardia)
for finished water protective of human health. Other
researchers have used QMRA methodology to assess microbial risks for a variety of
activities and organisms
(
Haas
et cal.,
1996; Haas
et al.,
1999; Gel-Ila
et cal.,
1996; Crabtree
et cal.,
1997; Pouillot
et al.,
2004
).
Microbial risk assessment techniques were used to
quantitatively assess the health risks for the use of recreational waters that receive
effluent discharges (Soller
et
at.,
2003) and were incorporated in the World Health
Organization (WHO) Guidelines for Safe Recreational Waters (WHO, 2003).
The process of risk assessment is typically divided into four steps (EPA, 1989; NRC,
1994):
Hazard identification,
in
which the human health effects of the particular
hazard are described;
* Exposure assessment,
which determines the relevant pathways and nature of
the exposed population along with quantitative estimates on the levels of
exposure;
Dose- response assessment,
which characterizes the relationship between
administered dose and incidence of health effects; and
Risk
characterization,
which integrates the information from the previous
steps in order to estimate the magnitude of risks and to evaluate variability
and uncertainty.
These four steps in the risk assessment are discussed in more detail in the following
sections as they relate to the microbial risk assessment of the CWS.
5.1
Hazard Identification
Recreational use of the CWS may expose individuals through incidental ingestion,
dermal, and inhalation pathways to disease-causing bacteria, viruses and protozoa within
the waters.
The health effects of microbial pathogen exposure to recreational water are
Fir),,O
Wetd:y-April 2008
94

 
Geosynteco
consultants
varied
.
Pathogens may infect the gastrointestinal tract, lungs, skin
,
eyes, central nervous
system or liver (WHO, 2003
).
The most common illness is gastrointestinal upset
(
nausea,
vomiting and diarrhea
),
usually of moderate intensity and short duration
.
However, in
susceptible individuals such as infants, the elderly and the imillunocompromised, tile
effects
may be more severe, chronic (e.g., kidney damage) or even fatal (Hoxie
et al.,
1997).
Exposure to microbial contaminated water may result in both gastrointestinal and non-
gastrointestina
l
illness
.
However, gastrointestinal illness is the principal adverse outcome
associated with exposure to microbially contaminated water.
Most of the pathogens of
concern cause gastrointestinal illness.
Since there is a certain degree of correlation
between different pathogens
,
indications of unacceptable levels of gastrointestinal illness
may indicate a potential for other effects
.
Therefore, the risk of gastrointestinal illness
was selected as the sentinel effect for conducting the quantitative risk assess€nent. Note
that
Pseuelornorlas
is
a bacterium that causes folliculitis and ear infections but not
gastroenteritis (Asperen
et al.,
1995
).
Risks from
Pseuclomonas
are
evaluated
qualitatively to ensure that these risks are not overlooked in the assessment. 'T'he
qualitative comparisons arc provided by comparison
of Psewlomonas
levels under wet
and dry weather conditions
.
Some adenovirus strains are primarily associated with
respiratory illness (Gerba, 2007).
However, fecal-oral transmission associated with
gastrointestinal illness is the primary effect evaluated in this study.
As a conservative
assumption all detected adenovirus was assumed to contribute to gastrointestinal illness.
5.2
Ex
p
osure Assessment
Exposure assessment evaluates the duration, frequency and magnitude of pathogen
exposure by one or more pathways. The assessment is dependent on adequate methods
for detection, quantification, specificity, virulence and viability of the microorganisms in
question and is often dependent on studies and models of transport and fate in the
environment. Exposure assessment use,, an array of information sources and techniques.
Typically, data are not available for all aspects of the exposure assessment and those data
that are available may sometimes be of questionable or unknown quality. In these
Final
Wetdry-April 2009
95

 
Geosyntec°
consultants
situations, qualified assumptions
must be made.
These are based on professional
judgments and inferences based on analogy with similar microorganisms or processes.
The end result is based on a number of inputs with varying degrees of uncertainty.
Potential receptor groups are identified in the exposure assessment and estimates of
exposure are calculated based on assumptions regarding exposure pathways and exposure
parameter inputs.
For this assessment, CWS specific information was used whenever
possible to characterize the population that may be potentially exposed to disease causing
organisms in the CWS. The focus of the assessment was on the incidental ingestion
pathway as discussed in more detail below. The subsequent sections discuss in more
detail the types of receptor groups and waterway use evaluated in this assessment and the
exposure inputs used.
Exposure to pathogens through recreational activities can occur through different
pathways.
The most important is via incidental ingestion but other routes can also be
important for some microorganisms, like exposure via inhalation,
eye
or dermal contact
(Maas
et al.,
1999).
Since the endpoint of this evaluation is gastrointestinal illness,
exposure pathways that contribute to this effect were investigated.
An initial evaluation
of the contribution to total intake by several pathways (incidental water ingestion,
inhalation and dermal contact) was conducted to determine the relative contribution of
each pathway to total exposure to microbiological organisms in surface water while
recreating.
Dermal contact was assumed to not contribute to exposure that would lead to
gastrointestinal illness.
Inhalation exposure of spray or droplets containing pathogens
which are subsequently swallowed may contribute to the total dose. The total ingestion
dose was adjusted to account for this pathway. However, it is unlikely that users engaged
in non-immersion activities would be subject to levels of inhaled mists or sprays that will
lead to a substantially increased ingested dose. Based on this assessment, exposure from
inhalation and dermal pathways were considered insignificant to the contribution to the
risk of gastrointestinal illness or can be accounted for through the incidental ingestion
term.
An intake parameter for incidental direct ingestion of surface water was developed
that incorporates
minor contributions from inhalation while engaging in recreational
activities along the waterways.
Final Weldry-April 2008
96

 
Geosyn.tec°
consultants
5.2.1
Waterway Use Surnmary and Receptor Group Categorization
Several sources of information were reviewed to estimate recreational use and exposure
to the CWS (CDlvl, 2004; USACQE, 1994; EPA 2006), Each of these studies provides
insight on the types and frequency of recreational exposure expected in the waterway.
For quantitative risk analysis, the UAA study was used as the primary source for
exposure use data for the CWS. The purpose of the UAA, is to "°evaluate existing
conditions, including waterway use practices and anticipated future uses to determine if
use classification revisions are warranted".
As a part of the UAA, the CWS was divided
into three major waterway segments each associated with a single WRP. A CWS map
with the waterway segment divisions, WRP outfalls, and sampling locations is provided
in Figure 5-1.
The UAA surveys were conducted to evaluate the types of recreational use that are
currently being exhibited on each of the waterway segments. Based on the UAA, several
recreational exposure scenarios were selected for evaluation in the risk assessment. The
exposure categories listed in the UAA were divided into three groups based on the
assumptions of varying exposure intensity. Immersion activities like swimming, skiing,
and wading were not included in the risk assessment as these are not designated use
activities allowed in the CWS. Jetski use is typically thought to involve immersion and
thereby would not be allowed
under
the use conditions on the waterways.
however,
largerjetski boats would be allowed. The UAA report did not distinguish between these
two types of watercraft.
Receptors reported as using jetskis were grouped with the
highest exposure classification (i.e. canoeing
)
for the purposes of deriving receptor user
statistics for the risk assessment.
However, it should be noted that the resulting risk
estimates do not account for.jctski use that involves immersion
.
In addition, the UAA
waterway segments were grouped as appropriate to reflect the portion of the CWS that
would be relevant for evaluating the three WRPs.
The receptor use categories are described below:
Canoeing
+
Frequent contact with wet items (paddles, boat deck, equipment)
Final wetdr
y-April 2008
97

 
Geosynte&
consultants
r
Close proximity to water surface
r
Occasional direct contact with water (band immersion)
rishing2
Occasional contact with wet items (tackle, boat deck, equipment)
Infrequent direct contact with water
Pleasure Boating
• Infrequent contact with wet items (
boat deck, equipment)
r
No direct water
contact
The observation data from the UAA survey was
grouped according
to general activity
categories as presented
in Table 5-
1.
Based on the
receptor use grouping and UAA
reported
activity
levels, the proportion
of users in
each of the three exposure
groups was
calculated
within each waterway
(see Table 5-2).
To evaluate secondary attack rates (see Section 5.4.2), the number of family members
that
may be potentially exposed from a person infected while recreating on the CWS was
needed.
Family sizes for the Chicago area were derived from the 2004 America
Community Survey conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau. Data for Cook County, the
county in which the waterway segments traverse, were used to calculate percentages of
households within a given size category.
A household was defined by the Survey as
including all of the people who occupy a housing unit as their usual place of residence.
Approximately q% of individuals live alone.
The data indicated the percentages of
household sires for households in which more than one person resided (U.S. Census,
2005) as shown in Table 5-3.
2 Exposure scenarios evaluated in this study are limited to water contact only and do not
include potential food borne pathogen transfer (i.e. from consttniption of inadequately
prepared microbially contaminated fish).
Finat
Weulry,Apfil2008
98

 
Geosyntee
consultants
5.2.2
Exposure
Inputs
Several exposure parameters are required as inputs to the exposure model,
These
parameters include incidental ingestion rates and exposure duration (i.e., time someone
may be in the CWS). This section discusses the exposure inputs and the rationale for
their selection.
A probabilistic approach was selected to evaluate risks of gastrointestinal illness for
recreational users of the CWS. Probabilistic risk assessment utilizes input distributions,
rather than point estimates, to better represent the variability and uncertainty that exists
for each input parameter (EPA, 1997). Thus, instead of using one value for exposure
inputs such as exposure duration or incidental ingestion, a range of possible values (or
more correctly, a probability density function) was used.
These probability density
functions are presented in the following subsections for each exposure input and receptor
category.
Incidental
Water
Ingestion Rates
one of the primary exposure inputs in the analysis is the amount of water one xnay
incidentally ingest when recreating on the CWS. Incidental ingestion may occur through
secondary contact of surface water contaminated surfaces, hand-to-mouth activity, or
direct ingestion if accidentally submerged.
Ingestion rates for these pathways are
expected to vary widely dependent on the recreational activity and chance occurrence of
high exposure events. Incidental ingestion of surface water may also occur through
inhalation and entrapment of mists and droplets in the nose and mouth with subsequent
swallowing.
The intake through this mechanism is likely dependant on proximity to the
water surface, generation of mists during recreational activity and length of time exposed.
There are no direct studies that have quantified the amount of water that participants in
low-contact water sports such as canoeing and boating may ingest. However, studies
have reported observed illnesses in canoeists and kayakers boating in water with
measured microbial contamination (l;<cwtrell, 1992; 1994). Fewtrell (1994) reports that
studies of rowing and marathon canoeists showed approximately 8% of canoeists at
freshwater sites reported capsizing and approximately 16% of rowers reported ingesting
Mimi Weldry-April 2W8
99

 
Geosyntec O
consultants
some water. These studies indicate that these activities are likely to involve some degree
of incidental water ingestion.
The exposure assessment literature was reviewed to identify recreational water ingestion
rates that may be relevant to the types of law-contact use observed during the UAA.
Water ingestion rates found in the literature were primarily from full contact swimming
,studies and ranged from 30 mL/hr (Crabtree
et al.,
1997, Van Heel-den
et
A,
2005) to 50
niL/event
(
EPA, 1989, Steyn
,
el al.,
2004
).
These values are based on a swimming
scenario which would result in ingesting significantly more water than one might ingest
through low contact boating. Only for instances in which a canoeist might capsize could
water be ingested at an appreciable rate. Other incidental water ingestion values were
identified in the literature. A value of 10 mL/event was reported for accidental gulping of
water during activities such as cleaning laundry, fishing and agricultural
/
Horticulture
irrigation (Cetithe and Rodda, 1999 and Medema
et
al.., 2001).
To account for the reduced wafer ingestion rates associated with low contact use of the
CWS, input ingestion rates were developed using a time
-
dependent ingestion rate to
account for background intakes associated with inhalation, coupled with a variable term
developed from a lognormal distribution
.
Lognormal distributions arise from a
multiplicative process and tend to provide good representations of exposure parameters
based on natural phenomenon
(
Ott, 1995).
For canoeists
the lognormal
distribution had a mean of 5 and standard deviation of 5
[LN(5,5)].
The fix
ed intake term was 4
mL/hr.
In this case the median
(
50`h percentile)
water ingestion
rate was 7.52 nil./
hr and the maximum (100th percentile
)
was 34 mL/hr,
within the range reported for full contact swimming
.
For the 90th to
1
00`' percentile,
ingestion rates ranged from
14 to 34 mUhr, which
implies that 10
%
of the population
may be exposed to water ingestion rates approaching those observed in swimming or
accidental gulping. This is consistent with the observation in the 1-,ewtrell
(
1994) study in
which 8% of canoeists reported capsizing
,
an event that may result in ingestion rates
similar to gulping or swimming.
Finat Wetdry-April 2008
100

 
Geosyntec°
consultants
Even less water could be ingested by people fishing and boating as compared to
canoeists. Therefore the input ingestion rates for these two categories were adjusted
downward using professional judgment. Incidental ingestion rates for fisherman was
assumed to follow a lognormal distribution rnean with a mean of 3 and standard deviation
of 2 [LN(3, 2)]. The incidental ingestion rate for a pleasure boater was assumed to follow
a lognormal distribution with a mean of 1 and standard deviation of 0.5 [LN(l, 0.5)]. A
fixed intake term of 1 mLihr was added to the lognormal intake rate for both boaters and
fisherman to account for background intake associated with proximity to the water. A,
graphical depiction of the lognormal portion of the distribution assumed for canoeists is
presented in Figure 5-2 to shove what a probability density function would look like based
on the tabular information in Table 5-4.
Exposu
re Duration
To develop a distribution for exposure duration, assumptions regarding the length of time
an individual might be on the waterway are required. Activity based assumptions were
developed for this exposure input based on waterway specific information (where
available) and professional judgment guided by literature refences.
For the canoeist scenario, canoeing event information from the Friends of the Chicago
River was reviewed. Canoes can be launched at several locations along the waterway
with several launch points along the North Side and the south Chicago River near
downtown. A major event that occurs each year on the waterway is called the Flatwater
Classic in which canoeists traverse approximately 7 miles of the CWS from the North
Side to the Chinatown area. Race times in 2005 ranged from approximately I hour to 3.5
hours with the majority of times between 1.5 and 2.5 hours. In non-race situations a
canoeist could take longer.
Boat launch statistics are available but do not provide
information on trip duration (EPA, 2007). Based on this information and professional
judgment, a triangular distribution was assigned to this input with the minimum time a
canoeist would be in the water of 1 hour and the likeliest time in the water of 2 hours.
Triangular distributions are often useful inputs in situations where the extremes of a
distribution are understood and a most likely value can be estimated.
A graphical
depiction of the triangular distribution is presented in Figure 5-3.
Final Wetdry
-April 20
08
101

 
Geosyntec
consultants
For Pleasure Boating and Fishing it was assumed that the likeliest tune on the water
would be for approximately 3 to 4 hours. For boaters it was assu>ned the maximum time
on the water would be an 8 hour day. For fishing the maximum tune was assumed to be
somewhat shorter at 6 hours.
5.
I7use»Respor^se Assessment
Dose-response assessment defines the mathematical relationship between the dose of a
pathogenic organism and the probability of infection or illness in exposed persons. Dose-
response data are typically derived from either controlled human feeding studies or
reconstruction of doses from outbreak incidences. In human feeding trials volunteers are
fed pathogens in different doses and the percentage of subjects experiencing the effect
(either illness or infection) are calculated.
While feeding trials cal) provide useful dose-
response analysis data, studies are usually performed in healthy individuals given high
levels of a single strain. Epidemiological outbreak studies provide responses on a larger
cross-section of the population but dose reconstruction is often problematic.
In most studies, the doses of pathogens encountered are high enough that a large
percentage of the exposed population (often >50%) are affected.
However, risk
assessment is often interested in the response rates at closes where i per 1000 or fewer
exposed individuals respond.
To estimate the dose-response at lower doses requires
modeling the available data and extrapolating to low dose. Different mathematical dose-
response models have been proposed to fit experimental data (Crockett
er at,
1996;
Teunis
el al.,
1996).
Biologically plausible dose-response models must account for two
conditional probabilities: the probability that an organism is ingested and the probability
that once ingested an organism survives to infect the host (Haas,
et al.,
1999).
Dose-response models assume that even a single organism has a finite probability of
initiating infection with an increasing number of pathogens resulting in an increasing
probability.
The most common models used in quantitative microbial risk assessment are
the exponential and beta-Poisson dose-response models. In the exponential model it is
assumed that all of the ingested organisms have the same probability, l/k, of causing an
infection.
The dose ingested is assumed to be Poisson distributed with a mean of D
Final WetdryAprli 2(M
102

 
Geosyntec°
consultants
organisms per portion (Haas
et al.,
1999).
The probability of infection given a dose (D)
is:
P(D)
= l -cxp(-
ilk xD)
(5-1)
where
P(D)
is the probability of infection, and
Ilk
is the parameter of the exponential
relationship.
The median infectious dose (N5o; dose of an organism resulting in a 50% probability of
infection
)
for an exponential dose-response relationship is derived from equation 5-1 and
given by:
N50 = ln(0.5)/(-k)
(5-2)
In the beta
-
Poisson model
,
heterogeneity
i
n the organisiudhost interaction is introduced
and k is assu
m
ed to follow a beta-Poisson distribution
(
Haas
et cll
.,
1999).
The resulting
model is more complex but can be approximated under the assumption that # is much
larger than both a and I so that the probability of infection given a dose (D) is:
P(D)
l -(l +
(5-3)
where P(D) is the probability of infection, .D is the dose ingested and a and /3 are the
dose-response parameters for the beta
-
Poisson model
.
This model is the current state-of-
the-science for characterizing dose-response relationships where the probability of host-
pathogen survival is governed by a probability distribution (Haas, 1999; Teunis
et al.,
1996).
The median infectious dose (N50) under a beta-Poisson model is derived from equation 5-
3 and given by:
N50 -
P/'))
((-1^
(5-4)
Final
Woldry
-
April 2008
103

 
Geosynte&
consultants
Published dose-response studies are available for some of the pathogens of concern for
this assessment.
Other pathogens lack specific dose-response studies but share sufficient
pathogenicity with known organisms that surrogate dose-response relationships can be
developed. The following section provides a brief overview of the pathogens of concern
along with a description of the dose-response data available and the selected dose-
response parameters used in this analysis.
A summary of the dose-response parameters
used in this analysis is provided in Table 5-5,
5.3.1
Enteric
viruses
Viruses that grow and multiply in the gastrointestinal tract are termed `enteric' viruses.
Many different enteric viruses are associated with human waterborne illness,
These
include adenovirus, norovirus, hepatitis virus (A [HAV] and E [HEV]), rotavirus and
enterovirus (poliovirus, coxsackievirus
A and B, echovirus and four ungrouped
enteroviruses).
Enteric viruses often find a limited host range, but some can infect both
humans and animals.
For example, while hurnans are the only natural reservoir for
hepatitis
A virus, norovirus, enterovirus, rotavirus, and hepatitis E virus can be
transmitted from anirnals-to-hurnans with animals serving as a natural reservoir (AWWA,
1999).
Enteric viruses arc excreted in large numbers in the feces of infected persons and animals
(both symptomatic and asymptomatic). They are easily disseminated in the environment
through feces and are transmissible to other individuals via the fecal-oral route. Infected
individuals can excrete over one billion (109) viruses per grain of feces.
The level of
viruses in a population is variable and reflects current epidermic and endemic conditions,
with numbers in raw sewage ranging from 100 to over 10,000 infectious units per liter
(Aulicino
et cal,,
1996; Rao and Molniek, 1986; Fields
et cal,,
1996). Numbers of enteric
viruses tend to peak in autumn/winter (Goddard
cat
al„
1981).
Although viruses cannot replicate outside their host's cells and therefore cannot multiply
in the environment, they can survive for several months in fresh water. Their survival in
the environment is prolonged at low temperatures and in the presence of sediments, to
1-ina1
Wctdry-Apfil2008
104

 
Geosyntec
consultants
which they easily adsorb. Exposure to sunlight, higher temperatures and high microbial
activity will shorten the survival of enteric viruses.
Dose-response
Development of a quantitative dose-response relationship for gastrointestinal illness
caused by total enteric viruses is problematic.
Methods for growth and detection of
viruses are costly and inefficient, making exposure estimates difficult.
The causative
viral
pathogen in gastrointestinal outbreaks where enteric viruses are suspected is
typically not known, making specific dose-response estimation from outbreak studies
difficult.
The EPA
has proposeci using rotavirus as a conservative surrogate enteric virus for
gastrointestinal illness risk assessment
.
However,
rotavirus is among the most infectious
waterborne viruses
.
Because several different viruses are evaluated separately in the
present analysis
,
including
Calicivirtes
(
norovirus), the use of the most infectious agent as
a surrogate will over-estimate the true risks.
Of the enteric viruses, dose-response information is available for poliovirus I, echovirus
12, and coxsackie virus (Haas
er al.,
1999).
Each of these viruses fit an exponential dose-
response model with exponential parameters (k) in a narrow range from 69.1 to 109,9
(Haas
et tel.,
1999).
The dose-response for echovirus 12 (k = 78.3) was selected as a
surrogate for total enteric viruses with an infectivity in the middle of this range.
The
selected value is within the range of values used in the WERE (2004) biosolids study.
Table 5-5 provides a summary of dose-response parameters used in the risk assessment,
Secondary transmission is common for enteric viruses. It has been estimated that for
every child with a waterborne viral disease, an additional 0.35 people will become ill
(EPA, 2000).
One study showed a household transmission of viral gastroenteritis by
norovirus of 20% (Got;
et aL,
2002). Perry
er eel.
(2005), conducted a prospective study
of families in northern California and found an overall secondary transmission of 9%,
with children having a much higher attack rate than adults.
WERF (2004) reported a
secondary attack rate of 41%. For the purposes of the risk assessment, a conservative
Final Wetdry-April 2008
105

 
Geosynte&
consultants
secondary attack rate of 25% was used for all the enteric viruses. This value accounts for
both the highly infectious norovirus and the less virulent enteric viruses.
5.3.2
Calrefi imrs
The
Caliciviruses
arc small (27 to 35 nm) RNA viruses with a distinctive spherical capsid
surface with cup-shaped depressions.
Caliciviruses
are often named after the location of
the outbreak from which they are derived (Norwalk, Ohio; Hawaii; Snow Mountain,
Colorado;
Taunton and Southampton, England; Otofuke and Sapporo, Japan).
Caliciviruses
are leading causes of gastroenteritis in the U.S., with dissemination
predominately by the fecal-oral route (Greenberg and Matsui, 1992; Schaub and Qshiro,
2000). They produce gastrointestinal and respiratory infections in several animal species,
including humans, swine, and cats. 'rhe
Calicivirus
most associated with human disease
is norovirus (also called Norwalk virus), which is a major cause of epidemics of self-
limited diarrhea and vomiting in school children and adults. Although most adults have
serum antibodies to norovirus, the antibodies do not proteet them from the disease. In
fact, they may serve as a marker for increased sensitivity to illness (Johnson
et al.,
1990).
Caliciviruses
are endemic and commonly found in raw sewage at levels related to the
viral activity in the community. Use of recreational water that may be cont.arninated with
sewage or high bathing loads is associated with outbreaks of
Calicivirus
gastroenteritis
(Hoebe
et al..,
2004; Maunula
et al..
2004; Levy
et al.,
1998). It is likely that some portion
of the nationwide incidence of acute gastrointestinal illness associated with swimming is
caused by
Cali.civirus.
Dose-response
No human studies are available to derive a dose-response relationship for
Caliciviruses.
The EPA has suggested the use of rotavirus as a surrogate for dose-response relationships
with other enteric viruses.
A similar approach was used by WBRF (2004) to assign dose-
response parameters.
Based on rotavirus dose-response experiments in human
volunteers, the dose-response model for rotavirus fits a beta-Poisson model (Ward
el al.,
1986).
The median infectious dose (N50) from that study was 6.17 with an a value of
Final
Wood y-April 2008
106

 
Geosynte&
consultants
0.2531..
Like other
viruses, the secondary attack rates for
Caliciviruses
can be quite high
(Ethelberg
et al,,
2004).
One study suggests secondary spread within a family is
approximately 86% (Gerba, 2005).
Other studies show the household transmission of
viral gastroenteritis by norovirus at lower levels (Gott
et al.,
2002).
WERI~ (2004)
utilized a much lower secondary attack rate of 7.6%. Tile higher secondary attack rate
for norovirus of
86%
(Gerba, 2005) was selected to match the norovirus for the primary
dose-response parameters.
5.3.3
Adenuvirus
Adenoviruses are 90- to 100-non non-enveloped icosahedral viruses containing double-
stranded DNA. Adenoviruses are a common cause of gastroenteritis and viral diarrhea,
second in prevalence behind rotavirus. Incidence bates for gastroenteritis caused by
adenovirus range from 1.55 to 12 percent (Shinozaki
et cal.,
1991;
Wadell
et al.,
1994),
Infections occur year-round, with a slight increase in summer.
Although diarrhea can
occur during infection with any type of adenovirus, Ad40 and Ad4l are the subtypes
most often associated with gastroenteritis and diarrhea.
Other adenoviruses cause nose,
eye, and respiratory infections.
Contact with recreational water has been associated with
adenovirus outbreaks {D'.Angelo, 1979).
Humans are the primary reservoir for pathogenic adenovirus.
High titers of virus are
excreted during active infection and can continue to be excreted for months or even years
after disease symptoms have ceased, with as many as 20% of asynnptomatic healthy
people shedding viruses (Foy, 1997).
Adenoviruses are very environmentally stable,
allowing for prolonged survival outside of the host.
Like most viruses, they survive
primary effluent treatment systems and are more resistant to disinfection systems than
bacteria.
Dose
-
response
Several dose-response relationships are reported for adenovirus but none of these are
specifically for Ad40 or A.d41, subtypes primarily associated with gastrointestinal illness.
For example, an exponential model has been proposed for the respiratory subtype Ad4
Final Weidry-April 2001$
107

 
Geosynteca
wnsultants
with a k value of 2.397 (Haas
et al.,
1999).
This would suggest a highly infectious
pathogen and could be used as a surrogate for the risk assessment.
However, only a
portion
of the measured adenovirus corresponds to subtypes responsible for
gastroenteritis
.
This will lead to an overestimate of the true risks for gastrointestinal
illness.
Therefore
,
the dose-response for echovirus 12 (k = 78.3
)
was selected as a
surrogate for total enteric viruses with an infectivity in the middle of this range.
Studies
have estimated the secondary attack rate for adenovirus
in adults at
19% and in
children at 67% (I=ox
et al.,
1977).
A prospective study of children enrolled in day-care
centers in Texas generated data elucidating the role of enteric adenoviruses in group
settings (Van
et al.,
1992).
Children six to 24 months-old were monitored over five
years.
Ten outbreaks affecting 249 children were associated with enteric adenoviruses.
The infection rate during the 10 outbreaks ranged from 20 to 60 percent (mean 38
percent), and 46 percent of the infected children remained asymptornatic. Based on these
studies a composite secondary attack rate for both adult and children of 38% was used in
the present analysis.
5.3.4
Fseliff&I i7 cUCr.'
&c,herichica soli
are graze negative rods nor
m
ally harbored as harmless organisms in the
intestinal tracts of warm
-
blooded animals
(
Maier
et al.,
2000
).
Several strains, however,
are pathogenic and cause
;
gastrointestinal illness in humans
.
These strains include
enteroinvasive or
enterohemorrhagic
strains
0157:117,
0124,
0143),
enterotoxigenic strains
(
e.g.,
06:H16, 0148:1-128
),
and enteropathogenic strains (e.g.,
078:H11, 0111, 055). There
are an estimated
200,000 cases of infection and 400 deaths
attributed to pathogenic forms of
E. coli
in the U.S. annually (Bennett
et al.,
1987). A
number of these cases are related to recreational use of contaminated water including
several cases associated with
E. soli
0157 involving illnesses and deaths (Ackman
et al.,
1997; Swerdlow
et al.,
1959).
The 0157 strain is highly infectious, causing a severe
dysentery-like illness that
may lead to serious hemorrhagic or hemolytic uraemic
syndromes associated with significant mortality and morbidity
(
Haas
cat
al„
1999).
rinal Wetdry
-
April 2008
108

 
Geosyntec°
consultants
Gastrointestinal illness is associated
with the fecal-oral route of transmission for
pathogenic E.
coll.
Enterotoxigenic strains (responsible for most cases of traveler's
diarrhea) are species specific and indicate contamination with hurnan feces (Maier
et cal.,
2000),
However,
hurnans, pigs,
and cattle can harbor enteropathogenic and
enterohemorrhagic strains.
The environmental source for most 0157 strains is livestock
rearing. In recreational waters impacted by livestock excreta, there is a potential risk of
transmission to humans.
Up to
1510
of cattle in the United Kingdom harbor 0157 and
higher rates have been repotted in the U.S. (.tones, 1999).
In fresh surface waters,
F'_
coli
have a half-life of approximately 24 hours (Maier
et al.,
2000).
The half-life is shortened with elevated UV radiation and increased temperature.
E.
coli
are effectively killed by disinfection techniques such as UV irradiation,
chlorination, and ozonation..
Dose-response
Most
E. coli
measured in the waterway are not pathogens; therefore, an assumption was
required to adjust the reported
E. soli
concentration to account for the fraction of
pathogenic organisms.
Lirnited data exists to estimate the proportion of pathogenic E.
soli
in recreational waters.
Frequency of detection of the enterohernorrhagic strain
015TH7 in cattle hides or feces have been reported to vary between 0.2% to 30%
(O'Brien
et al.,
2005; Galland
et at,
2001).
However, the absolute proportion of this
pathogenic stain compared to all E.
colt,
even within cattle, is unknown. A survey of E.
coli
strains in the Calumet River is perhaps the best resource for establishing a proportion
of pathogenic E.
soli
in the CWS (Peruski, 2005). This study was conducted in both wet
and dry weather conditions.
Results of the study found that 2.7'/0 of the E.
Cali
were
pathogenic strains while 0.5% of the total
E. soli
were human pathogenic strains. Similar
results were observed in both dry and wet weather events. As a conservative estimate a
factor of 2.7% was selected for the fraction of pathogenic E.
coli.
This value likely over-
estimates the true fraction of human pathogenic organisms; therefore, a single dose-
response parameter that excludes the more infectious and less frequently encountered
strains was employed to develop risk estimates.
Final
WetdryApril 2008
109

 
Geosyntec°
consultants
The dose-response relationships for
E
.
tali
strains can be divided into two groups; 1) the
enterohemorrhagic strains, and 2) the enterotoxigenic and enteropathogenic strains. The
enterohemorrhagic strains are more virulent due to the presence of
Sh
.
igella-like
toxins
enabling the bacteria to adhere to the intestinal lining and initiate disease. Because of the
similarity in mechanism between enterohemorrhagic E.
coli
and
Shigella
,
the
Shigella
dose-response relationship has been proposed as a suitable surrogate (Haas
et al.,
1999).
Risks associated with the remaining E
.
coli
strains are best described by a beta-Poisson
dose-response relationship.
Several dose-response parameters have been suggested as
appropriate for assessing risk for pathogenic strains of
E.coli
(
Haas
et al.,
1999;
WERF,
2004).
Parameters for a composite best-fit dose-response model were developed from
using maximum likelihood methods
(
Haas
et al.,
1999).
Based on this analysis the
median infectious dose
(
N5Q) for enteropathogenic strains was 2.55E+06 with an a value
of 0.1748.
This dose
-
response parameter was selected as a conservative mixed strain
model to account for potential pathogenic
L tali
strains encountered in the CWS.
There is little data to support a pathogen specific secondary attack rate for pathogenic E.
cols.
One study has estimated secondary attack rates at
-15%
based on illness spread
within families (Parry and Salmon, 1998). However this study was not inclusive of all
strains of pathogenic organisms.
WERF (2004) reported a secondary attack rate of 2.7%
for the highly virulent 0157:117 strain. A secondary attack rate of 25% was used for this
risk assessment (Gerba, 2005
).
Again, this value is a conservative estimate and will tend
to over-estimate risks for this pathogen.
5.3.5 Pxewdoz
w
oiras aerrrginosa
Psetaclonionas aeruginosa
is
a
Gram-negative, rod-shaped bacterium that can cause
infection in a variety of organisms including plants, insects, birds
,
and rrrammals
including hurnans (Maier-
et al., 2000).
In humans, it is known to cause skin rashes, eye
infections
,
and is the primary organism associated with external ear infections
(
Kush and
I-loadley 1980).
Ear infections
(
otitis externia) have been associated with
Pseudonlonas
aeruginosu
after immersion activities in recreational water but these organisms do not
Pinar Wetdsy
-
Apfi) 2
(
X)8
110

 
Geosyntec°
consultants
seem to produce gastrointestinal effects (Ontario Ministry of the Environment, 1984;
Seyfried, 1984; Cabelli
et al.,
1979).
P. aeruginosa
is
ubiquitous in U.S. waters with both fecal and non-fecal Sources.
Approximately 10 per cent of the healthy North American adults are intestinal carriers of
P. aeruginosa,
resulting, in concentrations in raw domestic sewage ranging from 145 to
146 CFU/100 mL (Canadian Ministry of National Health and Welfare, 1992). Another
study measured
P. aeruginosa
in raw sewage at a level of 1,804 CFU/mL, wastewater
treatment effluent at 140 CFU/nil. , and canal and lake water at 10 CFU/rnL (Dutka and
Kwan, 1977). In addition,
P. aeruginasa
levels in excess of 100 organisms/100 ML can
be measured in waters receiving surface drainage from urban areas (Ontario Ministry of
the Environment, 1984).
Y. aeruginosa
survives longer in waters than do coliforms
(Lanyi
et al.
1966) and has the ability to multiply in waters with low nutrient content
(Canadian Ministry of National Health and Welfare, 1992).
Dose-response
No quantitative dose-response studies are available for this pathogen.
P, aerughlosa
is
not a significant cause of gastrointestinal illness in humans.
However, the presence of
this pathogen in recreational water may pose a significant risk for foliculitis and otitis
(Asperen
et al.,
1995).
A quantitative exposure assessment for the dermal risks posed by
this organism is problematic (Hardalo and Edberg, 1997).
For example, folliculits
requires a prior skin cut, open sore or abrasion to allow infection. The prevalence of this
condition in the exposed population is unknown. Data from a 4-year study were used to
develop a relationship between the concentration of P.
aeruginosa
in the bathing waters
and the risk of ear infection (Ontario Ministry of the Environment, 1984). From this
study it was estimated that when levels of P.
aer•uginosa
exceed 10 CFU1100 rel., in at
least 25 per cent of the seasonal samples, otitis externa may be expected to occur.
No quantitative estimates of risks for non-gastrointestinal illness associated with P.
aeruginosa
are derived
.
Epidemiological evidence suggests that gastrointestinal illness is
unlikely.
A qualitative evaluation of the non
-
gastrointestinal
(
dermal
)
risks is discussed
below as a comparison between the dry and wet weather data.
Final Weidry-April 2008
111

 
Geosynteccl'
consultants
5.3.6 &rlirrolrella
Salmonella
are
Gram-negative rod shaped bacteria.
More than 2000
Salmonella
serotypes are known to exist, with the number of non-typhoid salmonellosis cases in the
United States per year estimated to be between 2 million and
5
million.
Salmonella
is
one of the most common intestinal infections in the U.S.
Salmonella. tyj lhi
and
paratyphi
are strictly human pathogens and domestic animals play no role in the epidemiology of
these infections.
All of the other "non-typhoid"
Salmonella
spp. (e.g.,
Salmonella
enterica)
are ubiquitous in the environment and reside in the gastrointestinal tracts of
animals (Haas
et at.,
1999).
The vast majority of hurnan cases of salmonellosis are
acquired by ingestion of fecal contaminated foods or water, with cases more common in
the warmer months of the year (Maier
et al.,
2000).
Person-to-person transmission of
Salmonella
occurs when a carrier's feces, unwashed from his or her hands, contaminates
food during preparation or through direct contact with another person.
Dose-response
Dose-response
data
were obtained froth human feeding studies conducted by
McCullough and Eisele (1951), who investigated the pathogenicity of five
Salmonella
species isolated from eggs and egg products. The analysis concluded that the lognormal
and beta-Poisson model fit the majority of the data. The parameters of the beta-Poisson
close-response
model for non-typhi
Salmonella
in general were reported as a = 0.3126
and a median infective close N50 = 2.36 x 10' (Haas
et al.,
1999). This value is within the
range of those reported in `VERI~ (2004).
Limited information is available on the
secondary attack rates for
Salmonella,
A secondary attack: rate of 0.3% was used by
WERF (2004) to develop risk for exposure to biosolids. A conservative secondary attack
rate of 25% was used in this study (Gerba, 2005).
5.3.7
Cryptosporidium
The host ranges of different types of
Cryptosj.)oridium
vary.
Infections of
Cryptosporiditan
in humans are
caused by C.
horninis,
previously classified as
C. parvaan
genotype 1, or by the animal genotype 2,
C. parvurn
(Xiao
et al.,
2004). The protozoa
FinM wetdry. Ap;512008
112

 
Geosynteco
consultants
cause self-limiting diarrhea, however cryptosporidiosis can be life threatening in
immunocornpromised people.
C. pare nr
is
very common among newborn calves that
can excrete oocysts in high numbers, but is also fr-erluently found in adult livestock and
other ruminants.
The oocysts are extremely resistant to chlorination and have been
involved in many waterborne outbreaks (see Milwaukee outbreak review by MacKenzie
et al., 1994;
Mayes
et al.,
1989).
Cryptosporidi.urn
are shed by livestock and other mammals and acquired by hurnans
through ingestion of drinking water or incidental ingestion of recreational water (Gallaher
et cal.,
1989).
Crypto.sl3oridium
are responsible for major waterborne outbreaks in the
LT.S, and elsewhere in the world in recent years.
Harvest and post-harvest uses of
contaminated water are of imn-.ediate concern, although the link between livestock
grazing or dairy operations and potential for infection from produce consumption is very
uncertain.
C. parwfm
oocysts were detected in 40 to
90%
of the surface waters tested
between 1988 and 1993.
C. parvaO77
is shed by humans, cattle, sheep, goats, pigs, horses,
deer, raccoons, opossums, rnice, brown rats, feral pigs, and rabbits. Chickens and turkeys
do not appear to be hosts. Shedding is usually litnitcd to livestock under 6 months of age
at concentrations of up to 10 million oocysts per grand and 10 billion oocysts per day,
typically for 3 to 12 days. Twenty-two percent (22%) of U.S. dairy calves tested positive
for
Crylylosporidium parvu.m.
Contamination of waterways by direct defecation, runoff
from grazed pasture, contamination of old or poorly constructed wells, and subsurface
flow are all documented routes of pathogen infestation of water sources. More than 5,000
oocysts per liter were detected in irrigation water passing through cattle pastures. 113
addition to livestock and wildlife, recent studies have traced the source of groundwater
contamination to poorly designed septic systems and adjacent old wells that are no longer
properly sealed (Moore
et al.,
1993; Kramer
et cal.,
1996; Levy
et al.,
1998; Bat-wick
et
cal.,
2000).
Oocysts apparently die following drying; however, the lack of direct and definitive
infectivity assays limits the strength of proof in any viability-based assesscnent.
Oocysts
are very resistant to chlorination, but are inactivated by properly designed ozone infection
or UV disinfection systems. Oocysts were viable for more than one month in cold river
Final Wculry-April 2008
113

 
Ge©syntec°
consultants
water.
Oocysts were non-viable after exposure to 64°C for at least two minutes (Haas
et
al., 1999).
Dose-response
The
Cryptvsporidium
dose-response relationship is well characterized by use of an
exponential model.
Outbreak and human feeding studies suggest that this organism is
highly infectious with an exponential dose-response parameter
(k)
of 238 (Haas
cat
al.,
1999).
Cryptosporidiurn parvacrrt
is highly transmissible and infective in the family setting, with
transmission rates similar to other highly infectious enteric pathogens such as
Shigella
species. In a community study of the infectivity of
Cryptosporidilan
in families living
under crowded urban conditions in Brazil, secondary attack rates were calculated at 19%
(Newman
et al.,
1994).
High secondary attack rates are supported by reports from United
States daycare centers experiencing cryptosporidial diarrhea episodes (Current and
Garcia, 1991; Driscoll et
al.,
1988).
WERF (2004) reports a secondary attack rate of
3.7%n to derive risk for transmission from biosolids.
A more conservative secondary
attack rate of 19% was used in this study.
5.3.8
(;&I-dia
The flagellated protozoa
Giardia
has been found in a variety of animals. The species
Giurdia lamblia
is known to infect the gastrointestinal tract of humans.
Giardiasis
is the
most common protozoan infection of the human intestine worldwide. It occurs
throughout temperate and tropical locations, with its prevalence varying between 2 and
5% in the industrialized countries and tip to 20 to 30% in developing countries (Fraser,
1994; Kappus
et al.,
1994).
The symptoms usually manifest themselves about seven to
ten days after the organism is ingested.
Giardiasis
may be chronic in some patients,
lasting for more than one year.
Giardia
is an opportunistic organism and infects a wide range of hosts including wild and
domestic animals, birds, and humans. The CDC (1999) estimates that approximately 2
million Americans contract
Giardiasis
every year. Infection from
Giardia can
occur
Final WetdryApffl 200$
114

 
Geosynte&
consultants
from consuming contaminated food or water. It can also be transferred from animal or
human feces.
Although infection manifests itself with severe diarrhea and abdominal
cramps, many infections may be asymptomatic and these individuals may still serve as a
carrier of the disease.
Giardia
infection is a concern for people camping in the
wilderness or swimming in contaminated streams or lakes, especially the artificial lakes
formed by beaver dams.
Giardia
can survive out of water for an extended period of time
in cool moist conditions.
Nose-re
sponse
Outbreak and human feeding studies suggest that
Giardia
infectivity fits an exponential
Model with a dose-response parameter (k) of 50.5 (hose et al., 1991).
Household
transmission of infectious gastroenteritis caused by
Giardia
is likely to account for a
substantial portion of community incidence.
With the exception of a few prospective
studies (Dingle
et al.,
1964; Kooprnan
et al.,
1989), studies of household transmission of
gastroenteritis have typically reported on community outbreaks of individual pathogens
followed up in the home (Pickering
et al.,
1981; Gott
et al.,
2002; Kaplan
et al.,
1982;
Morens 1979; Parry
et al.,
1998).
Pickering
et al.
(1981) reported an overall secondary
attack rate of 1 1% among family members of children involved in daycare outbreaks.
WERE (2004) reports a secondary attack rate of 0.72%. A more conservative secondary
attack rate of
25°lo
was used in this study.
5.4
Risk Characterization
The main objective of the risk assessment was to use a probabilistic approach to develop
risk distributions for GI illness associated with virus, bacteria and protozoa exposure over
a recreational season including both dry and wet weather clays. The second objective of
the risk assessment was to estimate the change in risk if disinfection techniques were
employed to reduce the influence of the WIT effluent on the waterway pathogen
concentrations.
Methods used in the probabilistic assessment are described below.
Daily average microorganism concentration data for discrete segments of the waterway
were used with receptor use patterns and exposure assumptions in a probabilistic risk
Final WctdiyAprd 2008
115

 
Geosyntec
consultants
assessment
.
Based on the exposure information and the dose
-
response information
gathered from the primary literature, risk of illness for recreational, users was calculated
for each segment of the CWS. In addition, risk from secondary exposures was computed
(see
Disease Transmission Model below).
Results are expressed as the number of
illnesses
per exposure event or exposure day, broken down by WRP segment,
recreational activity, weather and microorganism. This analysis provides information on
the expected number of illnesses associated with different recreational uses of the CW,S,
the
microorganisms responsible, and the waterway segments that contribute the highest
risks.
5.4,1
Probabilistic Analysis
A probabilistic approach was selected to evaluate risk of gastrointestinal illness for
recreational users of the CWS. Probabilistic risk assessment utilizes input distributions,
rather than point estimates, to better represent the variability and uncertainty that exists
for each input parameter. Thus, instead of using one value for exposure duration, water
consumption, or pathogen concentration, a range of possible values (or more correctly, a
probability density function
)
is
used
.
This is a more precise reflection of actual
populations and results in a more accurate prediction of potential risk. Tile probabilistic
approach
(
one-dimensional
,
based on both variability and uncertainty) selected for this
risk impact analysis is Monte Carlo simulation using Crystal Ball © Pro software
operating
on a personal computer.
This system uses randomly selected numbers' from within defined distributions (e.g.,
exposure duration and ingestion rate) and selected equations to generate information in
the form of risk distributions
.
Input distributions were sampled using Latin flypercube
sampling techniques to ensure equal representation of all parts of the input distributions.
Using this process, the various possible outcomes (risk levels) and the likelihood of
achieving each outcome
(
percentages of the population protected at each forecasted risk
level) can be determined. From this, a projected risk distribution can be derived for each
3
A fixed seed
value was selected to begin the randon
number generation
(123,457).
By using the sa€ne
seed value within the Monte
Carlo
software, the
;
same sequence of random numbers can be replicated.
Pinal
Wetdry
-
Apol2009
116

 
Geosyntec°
consul=ts
waterway segment where use and pathogen concentrations are defined (North Side,
Stickney, and Calumet).
The contribution of each pathogen to the total risk was also
computed.
The potential for secondary spread of gastrointestinal illness within the
immediate family of recreational waterway users was estimated based on simulations
taking into account the family size and characteristics of secondary illness transmission
within families for each pathogen.
The following
section presents the Monte Carlo Simulation terms and definitions.
Bootstrapping
:
Bootstrapping is a widely accepted and extensively used procedure in
statistical analysis and represents a process of selecting a random input from a dataset.
This technique is useful in Monte Carlo analysis when the exact distributional form ()fail
input variable is either unknown or unable to be represented with a continuous
distribution.
Bootstrap samples are random selections from the empirical data with
replacement.
Bootstrap methods provide robust estimates of variability in Monte Carlo
assessments as the probabilities associated with drawing extremes in the distribution is
mimicked by the presence of extreme values in the empirical data.
Correlation
,
Correlation Analysis:
Correlation analysis is an investigation of the
measure of statistical association among random variables based on samples.
Widely
used measures include the
linear correlation coefficient
(also called the
product-anoraa
W
correlation coefficient
or
Pecarson's correlation coefficient),
and such non-parametric
measures as
Spearman rank-order correlation coefficient,
and
Kendall's tau.
When the
data are nonlinear, non-parametric correlation is generally considered to be more robust
than linear correlation.
Cumulative Distribution Functions
(CDF): The CDF is alternatively referred to in the
literature as the
distribution. function, cumulative frequency function,
or the
cumulative
probability function.
The cumulative distribution function, F(x), expresses the probability
that the random variable X assumes a value less than or equal to sonle value x, F(x)
Prob (X x). For continuous random variables, the cumulative distribution function is
obtained from the probability density function by integration, or by summation in the
case of discrete random variables.
Final Wetdry-April 2009
117

 
Geosynte&
consultants
Latin Hypercube Samplin
g: Ill
Monte Carlo analysis, one of two sampling schemes is
generally employed: simple random sampling or Latin Hypercube sampling, Latin
Hypercube sampling may be viewed as a stratified sampling scheme designed to ensure
that the upper and lower ends of the distributions used in the analysis are well
represented. Latin Hypercube sampling is considered to be more efficient than simple;
random sampling, that is, it requires fewer simulations to produce the same level of
precision. Latin Hypercube sampling is generally recommended over simple random
sampling when the model is complex or when time and resource constraints are an issue.
Monte Carlo Analysis
,
Monte Carlo Simulation
:
Monte Carlo analysis is a computer-
based method of analysis developed in the 1940's that uses statistical sampling techniques
to obtain a probabilistic approximation to the solution of a mathematical equation or
model.
Parameter
:
Two distinct, but often confusing, definitions for parameter are used. In the
first usage (preferred), parameter refers to the constants characterizing the probability
density function or cumulative distribution function of a random variable. For example, if
the random variable W is known to be normally distributed with mean p and standard
deviation 6, the characterizing constants 1t and 6 are called parameters. In the second
usage, parameter is defined as the constants and independent variables which define a
mathematical equation or model. For example, in the equation L w aX + bY, the
independent variables (X, Y) and the constants (a, b) are all parameters.
Probability Density Function
(11111;t`):
The PDF is alternatively referred to in the
literature as the
probability function
or the
frequency function,
For continuous random
variables, that is, the random variables which can assure any value within Borne defined
range (either finite or infinite), the probability density function expresses the probability
that the random variable falls within some very small interval. For discrete random
variables, that is, random variables which can only assume certain isolated or fixed
values, the terra
probability mass function
(PMF) is preferred over the terra probability
density function. PMF expresses the probability that the random variable takes on a
specific value.
Final
WetdryApril 2009
118

 
Geosynrec°
consUlraiits
Random Variable:
A random variable is a quantity which can take on any number of
values but whose exact value cannot be known before a direct observation is made. For
example, the outcome of the toss of a pair of dice is a random variable, as is the height or
weight of a person selected at random from the Chicago phone book.
Representativeness
:
Representativeness is the degree to which a sample is characteristic
of the population for which the samples are being used to make inferences.
Sensitivity
,
Sensitivity Analysis
:
Sensitivity generally refers to the variation in output of
a mathematical model with respect to changes
in the
values of the model's input. A
sensitivity analysis attempts to provide a ranking of the model's input assumptions with
respect to their contribution to model output variability or uncertainty. The difficulty of a
sensitivity analysis increases when the underlying model is nonlinear, nonrnonotonic or
when the input parameters range over several orders of magnitude. Many measures of
sensitivity have been proposed. For example, the partial rank correlation coefficient and
standardized rank regression coefficient have been found to be useful. Scatter plots of the
output against each of the model inputs can be a very effective tool for identifying
sensitivities, especially when the relationships are nonlinear. For simple models or for
screening purposes, the sensitivity index can be helpful. In a broader sense, sensitivity
can refer to how conclusions may change if models, data, or assessment assumptions are
changed.
Simulation
:
In the context of Monte Carlo analysis, simulation is the process of
approximating the output of a model through repetitive random application of a model's
algorithm.
Uncertainty
:
Uncertainty refers to
lack of knowledge
about specific factors, parameters,
or models. For example, we may be uncertain about the mean concentration of a specific
pathogen at a specific location or we may be uncertain about a specific measure; of intake
(e.g.,
incidental ingestion rate
while canoeing).
Uncertainty includes
parameter
uncertai y
(measurement errors, sampling errors, systematic errors),
model uncertainty
(uncertainty due to necessary simplification of real-world processes, mis-specification of
the
model structure,
model
misuse, use of inappropriate surrogate variables), and
Final
Wedry-Apri12008
119

 
Geosynte&
consultants
scenario uncertainty
(descriptive errors, aggregation errors, errors in professional
judgment, incomplete analysis).
Variability
.
Variability refers to observed differences attributable to
true heterogeneity
or diversity in a population or exposure parameter
.
Sources of variability are the result of
natural random processes and stern from environmental, lifestyle, and genetic differences
among humans
.
Exanrtples
i
nclude human physiological variation (e.g., natural variation
in susceptibility
),
weather variability, variation in use patterns
,
and differences in
pathogen concentrations in the environment
.
Variability is usually not reducible by
further measurement or study (but can be better characterized).
5.4.2
Disease Transmission Model
A single exposure event can cause illness in both the initial receptor exposed to the
waterway and secondary receptors that may later come into contact with the infected
initial receptor.
Because the magnitude of this secondary transmission varies depending
on the microorganism
,
failing to account for secondary transmission may bias the impacts
of highly communicable microorganisms.
This bias is particularly problematic when
evaluating effluent treatment options where variable microorganism killing and uneven
contributions
of
microorganisms from
WRP and other sources create selective
microorganism concentrations within the waterway.
To account for secondary transmission, a dynamic risk model was developed that
considers secondary exposure through contact with CWS recreational usors, Estimates of
the infectivity and transmission rate as inputs for the dynamic model were derived from
the primary literature for each of the microorganisms of interest. Because the number of
individuals exposed through recreation on the CWS is a relatively small proportion of the
total population of the Chicago metropolitan area, population levels of acquired immunity
and illness by secondary transmission were not impacted.
Therefore, the proposed
dynamic model considers a steady-state level of immunity and estimates disease
incidence only in the recreational receptor population and their irurnediate family. This
approach addresses the important dynamic aspects of disease transmission from CWS
exposure in the population most at risk.
Final Wetd3yApiyl 2008
120

 
Geosyntec"'
consultants
vie probability of contracting gastrointestinal illness from contact with an infected
individual is termed the secondary attack rate.
Secondary attack rates for various
organisms depend on the virulence of the organism in question, the amount of organisms
an infected individual sheds, and the environmental stability of the organisms. Secondary
attack rate data are available in the primary literature from studies on the spread of
gastrointestinal illness
within confined groups of people (e.g. families, cruise ship
passengers, nursing hone residents),
More detailed information is provided in the dose-
response section for each pathogen. 'gable 5-6 presents a summary of secondary attack
rates used in this analysis.
5.4.3 Microbial Exposure Point Concentrations
Receptors utilizing the waterway may encounter variability in pathogen concentration
over both time and space. Receptors traveling in watercraft may be exposed to pathogens
over a large stretch of the C:WS. Even receptors fishing from the bank may encounter
waterway pathogen concentrations that vary over the course of the exposure duration.
The pathogen concentration term used to estimate risk reflects the average pathogen
concentrations encounteۥed over the course of the exposure in the CWS.
The dry weather sampling results and risk characterization were developed by
segregating data based on location relative to the WRPs (i.e. upstream and downstrear).
(See Section 2.2.1 for details).
All upstream and downstream samples were collected
from locations at 15 waterway widths (within two miles) from the WRP outfalls. Results
from the dry weather risk assessment showed that risks were low from both upstream and
downstream locations,
with
most pathogens having slightly higher downstream
concentrations.
However, the relative differences in concentration between upstream and
downstream pathogen concentrations were small in comparison to concentration data
between dry and wet weather conditions.
Wet weather samples were collected from locations both directly upstream and
downstream and additionally along the entire length of each waterway segment
downstream of the North Side, Stickney and Calumet WRPs (see Section 2.2.1 for
details). In contrast to the dry weather conditions where the WRP effluents constitute the
Final Wc1dry-Apri12009
121

 
Geosyntecd
cansullantq
major flow and pathogen input to the CWS (more than 70 percent of the flow), wet
weather inputs (CSO overflows, purnping station discharge points, and stormwater
discharges) are widely distributed along the waterway. The larger spatial coverage of the
wet weather sampling reduces the uncertainty in the waterway pathogen concentration in
areas distant from the WRP effluent discharge where recreational use is most likely to
occur. In addition, recreational users may be exposed to pathogens over long stretches of
the waterway through watercraft use. For this assessment recreational use is assured to
occur along the entire WRP waterway scgrnent. The average pathogen concentration
along the waterway is the best representation of the exposure that a receptor Wright
encounter. Based on this analysis, the results for the combined upstrearn and downstream
samples were deemed most appropriate for characterizing overall risks for the CAW. For
each of these groups, the variability in pathogen concentration was captured by bootstrap
sampling from the entire WRP waterway segment dataset. Outfall data was combined as
the arithmetic average of all outfall samples for each WRR
'T'ypically dry weather periods allow any residual pathogens frorn CSOs or other wet
weather inputs to attenuate. For this study the dry weather sampling data was reflective
of the effects of WRP effluent on the pathogen concentrations in the waterway with as
little impact as possible from residual wet weather effects.
There were no samples
collected in intervening period between the wet weather and dry weather sampling
events.
However, these days represent a large portion of the recreational year and
estimates of the concentration in the waterway on days between wet and dry weather
conditions are an important consideration in the risk assessment. Estimates of pathogen
concentrations in the days following a wet weather event were estimated based on
modeling the attenuation of pathogens frorn the wet weather data through the following
two days.
The attenuation of pathogens through natural processes tends to follow an exponential
decay curve (Haas et al., 1999). The general exponential decay function is described
below.
Conc(x) = exp O *P) ;< Conc(i)
Final WcWy
-April 2M8
122

 
Geosyntec a
consultants
Where:
Conv
(
x)
pathogen concentration at time period x
t = time period of interest
i
= initial time period
/3= decay constant per time period (assumed =1)
Selection of an exponential decay constant
(
A was based on a parsimonious fit to the
data for organisms detected in both wet and dry sampling events. Using a /3=1 with the
geometric mean of the wet weather sampling data tends to produce values at the 72 hr
time frame that approximate the geometric inean of the concentrations seen in the dry
weather sampling.
While organism specific attenuation factors could be developed, the
variability observed in the data suggests that the uncertainty in these values would be
large.
Therefore, a simple exponential decay was selected as the rnodel to estimate the
pathogen concentration at 24 and 48 hour intervals post wet weather events. A pseudo-
dataset was constructed using each of the original wet weather data points to develop a 24
and 48 hour post-wet weather dataset.
Currently, there are no site-specific data available to determine the effectiveness of WRP
effluent disinfection on CWS pathogen concentrations
.
An estimate of this effect,
however, can be derived using the dry and wet weather sampling data along with the
published technical literature on pathogen reduction rates under various disinfection
techniques.
Dry weather waterway concentrations are largely the result of WRP effluent discharges.
Under idealized dry weather conditions (no upstream microbial loads or residual wet
weather effects), any disinfection technique applied to the WRP effluent would have a
proportional effect on the dry weather waterway pathogen concentrations (i.e. a 100 fold
decrease in the effluent would result in a 100 fold decrease in waterway concentrations).
Pathogen concentrations
measured during wet weather conditions result from the
Final Wetdry
-April 2008
123

 
Geosyntee
consultants
combined contributions of WRP effluent and wet weather discharge (i.e. CSOs, pumping
stations, stormwater runoff) microbial loads.
For the disinfection scenario, the waterway pathogen concentrations were estimated by
combining the waterway concentrations associated with wet weather conditions with the
estimated residual post-disinfection dry
weather concentrations for the respective
pathogens.
Disinfection efficiencies used in this approach are discussed
in detail in
Section 3 and are summarized in Table 5-7. In the absence of site specific disinfection
treatability results, this technique provides an approximation of the anticipated pathogen
concent
rations in
the CWS if disinfection were to be implemented.
Giardica
is reported as both viable and non-viable cysts. Only viable
Giardia
cysts are
capable of causing illness. An estimate of the number of viable
Guardia
cysts is required
for use in the risk assessment
.
Concentrations of
Gi.rardia
across all samples were
generally very low, as few as a couple, if any, detected cysts in each sample analyzed.
The precision of the viability assay is diminished because of the low frequency of
detection.
For example, consider a sample with one cyst detected. In this case tilt
Gicarcl'ia
is either viable or not (100%n viable or 0% viable). If this one cyst analyzed is
non-viable then the risk assess
m
ent may be biased low. If the one cyst analyzed
i
s viable
then the risk assessment may be biased high. To better estimate viability over a larger
dataset, a
WRP-wide viability value was generated and applied to the total number of
Gicrrdia
cysts for each sample within that WRP segment. As discussed in Section 3.3.2
above, dry and wet weather viability values were generated by pooling the total viable
and non-viable cysts in both instream and outfall samples from each WRP segment. The
overall dry weather viability values used are 26%, 21% and 10% for the North Side,
Stickney, and Calumet WRP, respectively. The overall wet weather viability values used
are 49%, 47% and
10%
for the North Side, Stickney, and Calumet. WRP, respectively.
5.4.4
Weather
Waterway pathogen concentrations are highly dependent on the weather conditions which
tend to influe
n
ce the microbial loading rates to the waterway
,
On dry weather days the
principal input (more than 70% of the flow) to the waterway are the WRPs effluent
Pinto
wetdry
-
Apt'il 2008
124

 
Geosyntec°
consultants
discharges.
On days with light rainfall, direct waterway inputs from minor tributaries and
surface water runoff may influence pathogen concentrations. In addition, WRP effluent
flow rates may increase as stormwater collects in area sewers and fills the Tunnel and
Reservoir Plan (TARP, also known as "Deep 'T'unnel"). Higher rainfall levels increase
sewer levels and may trigger CSO events to discharge to the CWS.
As the TARP
capacity is reached., the area pumping stations may discharge overflow water directly to
the waterway.
To represent risks from recreational exposure across the entire recreational season, the
input pathogen concentrations used in the risk assessment should account for the
probability
of encountering pathogen concentrations related to different weather
conditions.
The proportion of days under each weather condition in a recreational year
(April through November) was developed from historical records of CSO and
rainfall
records.
Data from the 2006 recreational year was selected as representative of rainfall
and CSO patterns for the CWS. Data from the 2005 drought year recreational season was
not used in the analysis as this data is not reflective of the general rainfall patterns
characteristic of the Chicago area and use of the 2005 data may underestimate risks.
Earlier data was also excluded as it fails to incorporate the effect of the stormnwater and
CSO management plans on CSO frequency
.
T
he input distribution used in the
simulations for selecting weather specific pathogen concentrations is shown in Table 5-8
A simplifying assumption
i
n this analysis is that recreational use and weather conditions
are not correlated. Common experience would suggest this is not the case as people tend
to spend less time recreating during rain events.
However
,
data on the numbers of
recreational users under various weather conditions is lacking. Further
m
ore, recreational
use may resume shortly after rain events when waterway concentrations are still strongly
influenced by the preced
i
ng weather patterns.
5.4.5
Simulations
Exposure parameters and pathogen levels were combined in a probabilistic risk
assessment to estimate primary and secondary illnesses associated with recreational use
of the CWS. For each simulation, a hypothetical receptor was created based on the
Finat
wetdry-Ap
r
il
2008
125

 
Geosyntec°
consultants
underlying exposure distributions and the risks for this receptor were computed.
The
process was repeated 1,000,000 times (i,e., the probability for a recreator to become ill
was examined by simulating 1,000,000 recreational encounters), and the results tracked
for each sinn
ilation
. The probability of developing illness was computed by comparing
the ingested dose with the potential of each pathogen to produce illness at that dose. The
probabilistic analysis proceeded using; the following sequence:
Determine
the
weather-influenced
waterway
dataset
for
microbial
concentration based on the frequency of that type of weather in the
recreational season.
2.
Bootstrap sample a representative microbial exposure point concentration
from the appropriate dataset (select the pathogen concentration for the
recreator on the day of exposure).
3.
Select an individual's recreation type (canoeing, fishing;, boating).
4. Select that individual's exposure duration (based on recreator type).
5.
Select that individual's ingestion rate (based on recreator type).
6. Develop a dose for that individual (intake * time ` concentration).
7. Determine that individual's infection/illness.
8.
Determine if secondary exposure/illness results.
5.4.6 Risk Assessment Calculation. Results and Conclusions
The estimated number of individuals developing illness was based on one million
simulated recreational use events computed for each waterway using either dry weather,
wet weather, or a combination of dry and wet weather data as described in section 5.4.3,
Results for primary illness associated with each waterway are provided in Table 5-9. As
expected, higher rates of illness are predicted during wet weather events, with the
Stickney waterway segment having the highest and the Calumet waterway segment the
lowest expected illness rates,
For comparison purposes, the EPA. guidelines for
acceptable risks associated with various recreational activities and the density of sentinel
microbial species is provided in Table 5-10. 'l'he results of this analysis demonstrate that
the expected illness rates for receptors exposed to the combined wet and dry weather
events were all below the 1986 EPA. lit-nit of 8 illnesses per 1000 exposure event for
primary contact exposure in heavily used swirnming areas and the proposed EPA, limit of
Final
Weidry-April 2008
126

 
Geosyntec°
consaltants
14 illnesses per 1000 exposure events for freshwater recreational use including
i
mmer
sion/swimmin
g acti
v
iti
es.
For each waterway segment the risks associated with exposure to the wet weather
concentrations were higher than those associated with dry weather concentrations. Under
dry weather conditions, the exposure risks were of similar magnitude between the three
waterway segments with the Stickney risks slightly higher than those from the North Side
or Calumet waterway segments (see Table 5-9). Under wet weather or combined weather
conditions the North Side waterway segment had higher levels of risk than either the
Calumet or Stickney waterway segments. Overall risk levels are not solely correlated to
pathogen concentrations in the waterway
.
This result is largely due to differences in
exposure
.
For example
,
the exposure intensity for recreational users on the North Side
segment
(
larger percentage of canoe use) is significantly higher
,
leading to the additional
probability of illness.
Risks calculated above were developed for all users, in proportion to the frequency of
use, for each waterway segment. Risks were also tabulated individually for each of the
three different classes of recreational use that span the range of exposures reported in the
UAA survey. The frequency that specific recreational users contribute to the expected
illnesses is shown in Table 5-11. The recreational activity with the highest potential for
exposure was fishing while that with the lowest exposure was pleasure boating.
Which
recreational activity results in the greatest number of affected users, however
,
depends on
both the proportion of users engaged in that activity and the pathogen load in that
waterway segment. For example, in the North Side segment, 33.7% of the illnesses are
predicted to result from canoeing, but canoeing accounts for only
20%
of the users of the
North Side waterway
.
In the Stickney and Calumet segments, the predicted
i
llnesses
were predominantly from fishing and boating due to the low frequency of canoeists in
these waterway segments. To further characterize the risk stratified by the recreational
use activity, risk per 1000 exposure events were computed separately for canoeing,
boating, and fishing recreational uses. Results are shown in'-fable 5-12. As expected, the
highest risks were associated with recreational use by the highest exposure group (i.e,
canoeing
).
However, for each waterway the risks associated with the highest exposure
Final
WcWry-April 2008
127

 
Geosyntec
consultants
use are below the proposed EPA limit of 14 illnesses per 1000 exposure events for
freshwater recreational use including itnmersionlswit7rm
ing activities.
Table 5-13 presents the risk estimates by the pathogen responsible for illness. For the
North Side and Stickney waterway segments the majority of predicted illnesses were the
result of concentrations of viruses,
E. coli
and
Giardia.
For the Calumet waterway the
risks are generally louver with multiple organisms contributing to overall risk. Secondary
transmission for these pathogens resulted in an approximately two fold increase in
population illness associated with the primary recreational user illnesses.
However,
secondary transmission rates are higher for the North Side and Stickney waterway
segments
where the highly communicable
Calicivirus
is a
dominant pathogen.
Secondary transmission considers spread from individuals who may become infected but
not ill, a common condition for a number of these pathogens.
The effects of various disinfection techniques on risk reduction were estimated for
combined wet and dry weather days. 'T'otal primary illness results, both with and without
disinfection, for each of the waterway segments is provided in Table 5-14. Similar
effects were seen in all three WRPs. Under dry weather conditions using; the assumption
that all CWS pathogen loads results from effluent discharge, disinfection decreases the
illness rates from low to essentially zero.
However, the impact of disinfection under real
world conditions (simulated wet and (lry weather) is less clear cut.
For example,
ozonation would decrease illness rates at the Stickney waterway segment from 1.74
illnesses/1000 exposures to 1.64 illnesses/1000 exposures.
These results suggest that
disinfection of effluent has little impact on the overall illness rates from recreational use
of the CWS.
Although
Pseudomonas aeruginosa
is
not a pathogen that is linked to gastrointestinal
illness, this pathogen has been linked to recreational illness outbreaks involving dermal
(foliculitis), eye, and ear (otitis externia) infections.
For this reason the levels of
Pseudorrronas aeruginosa
were evaluated under the sampling program for this risk
assessment.
However, quantitative evaluation of the risk for this pathogen is
problematic.
There are no published dose-response relationships for
Pseudomonas
Final
Wetdry-April 2(
X)8
128

 
Geosynteco
consultants
aeruginosa
.
Without a clear dose-rosponse relationship there is no way to establish the
expected illness level associated with any particular waterway concentration
.
The dermal
pathway for estimating exposure to
Pseudomonas aeruginoscr
is also problematic.
Ear
and eye infections associated with contact by
Pseudoniona.s aeruginosa
contaminated
water are typically associated with full immersion activities.
Since these types of
activities are not permitted or designated uses of the CAW the incidence of ear and eye
exposures are expected to be low and as the result of accidental or intentional misuse of
the waterway.
Pseudoinonas
related foliculitis commonly requires a break in the skin
from a preexisting out, open sore or scrape as an entry point for infection,
Immunocompetent individuals without skin abrasions rarely develop foliculitis by
exposure to intact skin.
For these reasons a quantitative evaluation of risks is not
feasible.
A qualitative review of the wet and dry weather data, however, may provide some insight
on the relative risk frorn
Pseudomona.s
exposure.
Comparison of the waterway level to
the outfall levels may also provide an indication on the effectiveness that a disinfection
step may have on
Psetulommnas
levels in the waterway.
Comparisons are provided for wet, dry and outfall
PSeudorr701uls
concentrations at the
three
WRP segments in Table 5-15
.
The mean dry weather
Pseudomonas
concentration
represents the combined surface and 1 meter-depth samples at both upstream and
downstream locations.
Mean wet weather values include all samples taken along the
WRP waterway segment. As shown in the table, the wet weather levels are higher than
those in the dry weather conditions
.
Perhaps more
i
mportantly
,
the outfall samples show
lower levels of
Pseudonionas
than the corresponding wet weather samples. This suggests
that the major inputs for
Pseudomonas
in the waterways are sources other than the WRP
effluent.
Therefore, disinfection of the WRP effluent would have minor effects on the
overall loading of
Pseudorrwnas
in the waterway and risks associated with recreational
exposure to this pathogen.
The results presented herein indicate that the levels of pathogens in the waterway
representing the spectrum of waterway conditions experienced in a recreational year are
Final Wetdry
-
April 2008
129

 
Geosyntec
consultants
low.
These low pathogen levels correspond to a low probability of developing
gastrointestinal illness, even for the most highly exposed recreational users in areas of the
CWS in close proximity to the District's WRP non-disinfected effluents from Stickney,
Calumet and North Side. For all designated recreational uses evaluated, the risks of
developing illness were less than the the proposed EPA limit of 14 illnesses per 1000
exposure events for freshwater recreational use including immersionlswimining
activities.
5.4.7
Sensitivity and Uncertainty Analysis
A sensitivity analysis was conducted in order to identify the contribution of each input
distribution to the variance of the resulting risk estimates. Receptor pathogen dose levels
from the combined wet and dry weather assessment were used as the basis for the
sensitivity analysis.
Results frorn the sensitivity analysis are present in Tables 5-16. The
input assumptions that contribute the greatest to the variance differ depending on the
waterway segment.
Model input sensitivity seems to correlate with the input assumptions
for the dominant recreational user class in each waterway. Incidental ingestion rates and
weather are the largest contributors to the sensitivity analysis for the North Side
waterway segment.
Recreational user type (receptor type) followed by incidental
ingestion rate, exposure duration and weather contributes the most to the variance for the
Stickney and Calumet waterway segments.
An alternative sensitivity evaluation is shown in 't`able 5-17. Illness rates for the North
Side waterway segment are presented in gases where the incidental ingestion rate and
exposure duration inputs varied by either plus or minus 25%n. Increasing the intake
assumptions lead to 19% increase in estimated risk while decreasing the intake
assumptions results in a 27%, decrease in estimated risk.
The effect of changing the
weather type is also provided on the table. The effect of changing the recreational use
assumption is provided in the stratified risk estimates on Table 5-12.
The probabilistic analysis conducted for this study was one-dimensional, focusing on
variability.
A probabilistic assessment of uncertainty combined with variability data
could be used to create a two-dimensional probabilistic output.
However, such
Fim)l
Weldry-April 2009
130

 
Geosptec°
consultants
assessment
was outside the scope of this study due to logistical constraints (i.e. boundary
conditions).
Uncertainty in the risk estimates is an important part of the Risk. Characterization. The
following factors may lead to an overestimation or underestimation of risk:
*
Exposure parameters may be biased high or low. In general, the exposure
parameters
were selected to provide a central tendency or `best
approximation' estimate for the risk assessment. Follow-up epidemiological
studies that measure actual illness rates could be evaluated in terms of this risk
assessment to allow model validation and fine-tuning of exposure parameters.
Such an Epidemiological Study is currently being, conducted for the CWS by
the University of Illinois at Chicago, on behalf of the MWRDGC.
*
Risks are calculated based on dose from ingestion
,
the predominant route of
exposure, and may be biased low for receptors with significant inhalation
exposure to water droplets from sprays or mists.
*
Secondary transmission rates are generally at the high end of those reported in
the technical literature
.
Therefore, the assumptions on secondary transmission
are conservative and the resulting secondary illness rates may be biased high.
*
For the purposes of this study, the population at risk from secondary
transmission
spread is limited to the immediate family of primary
recreational
users.
The secondary transmission model is included to estimate
:
the wider
effect of recreational illness beyond those directly exposed to the waterway.
In some cases the population at risk may include larger groups of individuals
with secondary exposure to a primary recreator. Examples of these groups
include infected individuals working with the public at larger institutions
(schools, hospitals
,
daycare centers
).
Due to the small recreational population
compared to the total metropolitan population and the endemic nature of the
pathogens in the
.
Population
,
this potential underestimation of risk and the
effect of recreational illness on the baseline population illness rate is likely
very
low.
*
This study did not account for all pathogens that may be present in CWS
recreational water.
However, the pathogens that were selected for inclusion in
the study include regulatory indicators and those that could be measured by
EPA approved methods that were fudged most likely to produce
gastrointestinal illness
(
see Section
2.
1
for a more complete rationale on
pathogen selection).
*
The measured pathogen concentrations under dry weather conditions are
limited to sampling locations near the
WRPs and they were used as
representative concentrations of the entire waterway downstream of the WRP,
Under dry weather conditions
,
these concentrations will be biased high
relative to concentrations at locations more distant
from
the
WRP.
Final
wetdry-Apfil 2008
131

 
Geosyntec
consultants
The measured concentrations of
E. soli
are assumed to represent the most
virulent strain; the percentage of pathogenic
E.coli
was conservatively
assumed to represent 2,7% of the total treasured concentrations. For other
organisms, such as adenovirus, all the organisms are assumed to represent the
pathogenic strain leading to gastrointestinal illness.
This assumption may
overestimate the illness associated with exposure to these organisms.
Virus concentrations measured by the assay systems may overestimate viral
risk.
Viral assay are not specific to the pathogenic virus in question and may
detect less pathogenic viral strains.
Recreational use may be inversely correlated with wet weather.
CWS
recreational use was assumed to occur randomly over the course of the
recreational season.
The majority of the illnesses were associated with wet
weather events. If the frequency of exposure on wet weather days is lower
than average then the resulting risk estimate may be biased high.
Some receptors with frequent use of the CWS may have lower sensitivity to
some pathogens due to acquired immunity. Repeated exposure to pathogens
in
water is known to produce tolerance in individuals through immune related
mechanisms. Dose-response parameters used in the assessment are generally
derived from "naive" individuals and represent upper-end estimates of
infectivity
for the general population.
Since repeated exposure to the
waterway is likely for a significant subset of the recreational population, the
risk of illness for these individuals is probably over-csti mated by this risk
assessment.
+
Risk calculations do not account explicitly for immersion activities.
While
canoeing incidental ingestion rates incorporate the occasional high ingestion
event, direct immersion activities such as swimming and water skiing are not
considered in the risk calculations. Swimming and water skiing are not
designated uses of the waterway.
To the extent these activities are
undertaken, the risks for receptors in these categories are not accounted for in
the results,
No consideration is given to upsets or interruptions in WRP treatment or City
infrastructure that
might result in increased pathogen loads.
Waterborne
disease outbreaks are often associated with failures in equipment or processes
that influence water quality. Estimating the frequency or magnitude of such
events is difficult if not impossible. The risk evaluation presented here does
not account for such low probability occurrences and assumes that the
measured pathogen concentrations are representative of ongoing conditions
experienced in the waterway.
Risks do not explicitly account for recreational activities associated with
sediment or sand ingestion. Pathogen concentrations in environmental media
along shorelines
where recreational receptors
might interface with the
waterway are unknown.
Final wetdsy
-April 2008
132

 
Geosynte&
consultants
Aerosoli:zation and drift of pathogens from the waterway to affect on-shore
non-recreational receptors is not accounted for in the model. Exposure based
on airborne transport of pathogens from the waterway is expected to be very
small.
Attenuation of pathogens in air occurs rapidly due to temperature, UV,
and oxygen conditions. However, intimate exposure near areas that alight
produce considerable mists, sucks as aeration stations, may represent an
additional risk not accounted for in this assessment.
5.5
References
Ackman D., S. Marks, P. Mack, M. Caldwell, T. Root, G. Birkhead, 1997, "Swim€ning-
Associated
Hemorrhagic Colitis due to Escherichia coli 0157:H7 infection:
evidence of prolonged contamination of a fresh water lake." Epidemiology and
Infections. 119: 1-8.
Asperen, I.A., C.M. de Rover, J.F. Schijven, S.B. oetorno, J.F.P Schellekens, N.J. van
I..,eeuwen,
C. Colle, A.R, Havelaar, D. Kromhout, M.W.J Sprenger, 1995, "Risk
of otitis externa after swimming in recreational fresh water lakes containing
Pseudornona,s aeruginosca."
BMJ 311:1407-1410.
American Water Works Association
(AWWA),
1999, Manual of water supply practices -
M48: Waterborne Pathogens. Denver.
Aulicino, F.A., A,
Mastrantonio, P. Orsini, C. Bellucci, M, Muscillo Lind G. Larosa,
1996, "Enteric viruses in a wastewater treatment plant in Rome." Water, Air, &
Soil Pollution. (91)3-4,327-334,
Barwick R.S., Levy D.A., Craun G.F., Beach MT, Calderon R.L., 2000, "Surveillance
for waterborne-disease outbreaks-United States, 1997-1998." MMWR Morb
Mortal Wkly Rep 49:1-44.
Bennett, AS, S.D. Holmberg, M.F. Rogers, and S.L. Sololnon, 1987, "Infectious and
parasitic diseases."
A€x€ J. Prev. Med. 3(5-suppl.): 102-.114.
Cabelli, V.J., Dufour, A.P., Levin, M.A., McCabe, L.J. and Haber€nann, P.W., 1979,
"Relationship of microbial indicators to health effects at marine bathing; beaches."
Am. J. Public Health 69:690-696.
Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc. (CDM), 2004, Draft Use Attainability Analysis of the
Chicago Area Waterway System. November.
Canadian
Ministry of National Health and Welfare, 1992, Guidelines for Canadian
Recreational
Water Quality. Prepared by the Federal Provincial Working Group
Final wuldry April 2008
133

 
Geosynteca
consultants
on Recreational Water Quality of the Federal-Provincial Advisory Committee orr
Environmental and Occupational Health.
Center for Disease Control (CDC), 1999, Preliminary FoodNet. Data oil the incidence of
Foodborne Illnesses - Selected Sites, United States.
Crabtree, K.D., C.P. Gerba, J.B. Rose, and G.N. Haas, 1997, "Waterborne adenoviruses:
a risk assessment." Water Science and Technology 35(11-12): 1-6.
Crockett, C. S., C.N. Haas, A, Fazil, J.B.Rose, and C.P. Gerba, 1996. "Prevalence of
shigellosis in the U.S.: consistency with dose-response information." International
Journal of Food Microbiology 30:87-99.
Current W.L. and Garcia L.S., 1991, "Cryptosporidiosis," Clin Microbiol Rev. 4:325-58.
D'Angelo LJ,
Hierholzer JC, Keenlyside RA., Anderson Li, Martone WJ, 1979,
"Pharyngoconjunctival fever caused by adenovirus type 4: report of a swimming
pool-related outbreak with recovery of virus from pool water." . J Infect
Dis:140(l):42-7.
Dingle J, G. Badger, W.J. Jordan, 1964, Illness in the home: a study of 251,000 illnesses
in
a group of Cleveland families. Cleveland (OH): Case Western Reserve
University Press.
Driscoll
M.S., V.L. Thomas, B.A. Sanford, 1988, "Cryptosporidium infection in day-care
centers (Letter)" Drug Intell C1in I'harm. 22:636.
Dutka B.J., K.K. Kwan, 1977, "Confirmation of the Single-Step Membrane Filtration
Procedure for Estimating
Pseudomoas aeruginosu
Densities in Water". Appl Env
Microbiol; :33(2):240-245.
EPA, 1989, Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Volume I-Hurnan Health Evaluation
Manual (Part A), Interim Final, December. EPA/540/1-891002.
EPA, 1997, Guiding Principles for Monte Carlo Analysis. EPA/630/R-971001. Office of
Research and Development Risk Assessment Forum, Washington, DC.
EPA, 2000, National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Ground Water Rule. Notice
published on the Internet before publication in the Federal Register, 40 CFR
Subpart S, Parts 1.41-142. (http:www.cpa.gov), pp. 315.
EPA, 2007, E-mail correspondence from Janet Pellenrini to Louis Kollias et al., "Village
of Worth Boat Launch Revenue." April 10.
Final wetdryA
pri€ 2
0019
134

 
Geosyntec°
consultants
Et.helberg S, K.E. Olsen, P. Gerner-Smidt, K. Molbak, 2004, "Household outbreaks
among culture
-
confirmed cases of bacterial gastrointestinal disease."
Am J
Ep i demiol : 59:406--12.
Fewtrell L., Godfree A., Jones F., Kay D., Salmon R., and Wyer M.D., 1992, "Ilealth
effects of white-water canoeing." Lancet, 339, 1587-1589.
Fewtrell L, Kay D, Salmon R, Wyer M, Newman G, Bowering G., 1994, "The health
effects of low-contact water activities in fresh and estuarine waters." J Inst Water
Environ Manag: 8:97-101.
Fields, S.N., DM. Knipe, and P.M. Howley, (cds.), 1996, Fields Virology, Vols. 1 and 2.
3rd edition. Lippincott- Raven Publishers, Philadelphia, PA.
Fraser
,
D. 1994.
Epidemiology of Giardia laznblia and Cryptorporidium infections in
childhood. Isr. J. Med. Sci
.
30:356-361.
Foy, If
.
M., 1997, Adenoviruses
.
In:
Evans, A.S
.
and R
.
A. Kaslow
(
eds.). Viral
Infections of Humans: Fourth Edition. New York
: Plenum.
Fox, J.P., C.E. Hall, and M.K. Cooney, 1977, "The Seattle virus watch VIL Observations
of adenovirus infections." American Journal of Epidemiology, 105: 362386.
Gallaher M.M, J.L. Herndon, L.J. Nims, C.R. Sterling, D.J. Grabowski, H.F. Hull, 1959,
"Cryptosporidiosis and surface water." Am J Public Health. 79:39-42.
Galland JC, Hyatt DR, Crupper SS, Acheson DW, 2001, "Prevalence, Antibiotic
Susceptibility
,
and Diversity of Escherichia soli 0157:117 isolates from a
Longitudinal
Study of Beef Cattle Feedlots." Appl Environ Microbiol.
67(4):1619-27.
Genthe B. and N Rodda, 1999, A tool for assessing microbial monitoring data.
WRC
Report No 470/1/99.
Water Research Commission, Pretoria, South Africa.
Gerba, C.P., J.B. Rose, C.N. Haas, K.D. Crabtree, 1996, "Waterborne rotavirus: a risk
assessment
."
Water Research
30(12): 2929-2940.
Gerba, G.P., 2005, Personal Communication with Keith Tolson of GeoSyntec.
Goddard, M.R, J. Bates, and M. Butler, 1981, "Recovery of indigenous enteroviruses
from raw and digested sewage sludges
."
Appl Environ Microbiol. 42
(
6): 1023-
1028.
Final
Wetdry-April 2008
135

 
GeosyntecO
consultants
Gotz 11, de JB, J. Lindback, P.A. Parment, K.O. Hedlund, M. Torven, 2002,
"Epidemiological
investigation
of a food-borne gastroenteritis outbreak caused by
Norwalk-like virus in 30 day-care centres." Scand J Infect Dis. 34:115-21,
Greenberg H.B., S.M. Matsui
,
1992, "Astroviruses and
Cali
.
ci.viruses:
emerging enteric
pathogens
."
Infect Agents Dis; 1:71-91
Haas, C.N., 1983, "Estimation of risk due to low doses of microorganisms: a comparison
of alternative rnethodologies." American Journal of Epidemiology, 118: 573-582.
Haas, C.N., J.B. Rose, C
.
Gerba, S. Regli, 1993, "Risk assessment of virus in drinking
water." Risk Analysis, 13: 545-552.
Haas, C.N., C.S, Crockett, J.B. Rose, C.P. Gerba, A.M. Fazil, 1996, "Assessing the risk
posed by oocysts in drinking water," Journal of American Water Works
Association 88(9): 131-136,
Haas, C.N., J.B. Rose, C.P. Gerba, 1999, Quantitative microbial risk assessment. New
York, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 449 pp.
Hardalo C., Edberg S.C., 1997, "Pseudomonas
aeruginosa:
assessment of risk from
drinking water". Crit Rev Microbiol. 23(1):47-75.
Hayes, E.B., T,D. Matte, T.R. O'Brien, T.W. McKinley, G.S. Logsdon, J.B. Rose, et al.,
1989, "Large community outbreak of cryptosporidiosis due to contamination of a
filtered public water supply". N Engl J Med.; 320:1372-6.
Hoebe, C.J., H. Ventnema, A.M. de Roda Husman, Y. T, van Duynhoven, 2004,
"Norovirus outbreak among primary schoolchildren who had played in a
recreational water fountain
."
Journal of Infectious Diseases 189
(
4): 699-705.
Hoxic N.J.,
Davis J.P.,
Vergeront J.M,,
Nashold
R.D.,
Blair
K,A.,
1997,
"Cryptosporidiosis-associated mortality following a unassive waterborne outbreak
in
Milwaukee, Wisconsin." Am J Public Health 87:2032-5.
Jones DL, 1999
, "
Potential health risks associated with the persistence of Escherichia coii
0157 in agricultural environments". Soil Use Manage. 15(2) p76-83.
Johnson P.C., J.J. Mathewson, H.L. DuPont, H.B. Greenberg, 1990, "Multiple-challenge
study of host susceptibility to Norwalk gastroenteritis in U.S. adults." J Infect Dis
161:18.
Kaplan J.E., G.W. Crary, R.C. Baron, 1982, "Epidemiology of Norwalk gastroenteritis
and the role of Norwalk virus in outbreaks of acute nonbacterial gastroenteritis."
Ann Interns Med 96:756.
Final Wetdry
-
April 2008
136

 
Geosynre&
consultants
Kappus, K.D., R.G. Lundgren, D. Juranek, J.M. Roberts, and H.C. Spcner, 1994,
"Intestinal parasitism in the United States: update on a continuing problem." Ant.
J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 50: 705713.
Koopman J.S., A,S. Monto, I.M. Longini Jr., 1989, "The Tecumseh study. XVI: Family
and community sources of rotavirus infection
."
Am J Epidemiol 130:760-8.
Kush 13J, Iloadley AW. A preliminary survey of the association of Pseudomonas
ueruginosa
with commercial whirlpool bath waters. Am
J
Public Health. 1980
March, 70(3): 279-281.
Kramer M.1-1,
Herwaldt B.L., Craun G.F., Calderon R.L., Juranek D.D., 1996,
"Surveillance for waterborne
-
disease outbreaks
---
United States, 1993-1994."
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 45:1-33.
Lanyi, B., Gregacs, M. and Adam, M.M. 1966. "Incidence of Pseudomonas
auruglInosa
serogroups in water and human feces." Acta Microbiol. Acad. Sci. Hung. 13:319.
Levy D.A., M.S. Bens, G.F. Craun, R.L. Calderon, B.L. Herwaldt, 1998, "Surveillance
for
waterborne-disease outbreaks---United States, 1995..-1996."
MMWR Morb
Mortal Wkly Rep 47:1-80.
Levy D.A., M.S. Bens, CY.I . Craun, R.L. Calderon, B.L. Herwaldt, 1998, "Surveillance
for waterborne-disease outbreaks-United States, 1995-1996."
MMWR CDC
Surveillance Sumni 47(SS-5):1-34.
MacKenzie W.R., Hoxie N.J., Proctor M.E., Gradus M.S., Blair K.A., Peterson D.E., et
al.,
1994, "A massive outbreak in Milwaukee of Cryptosporidiurn infection
transmitted through the public water supply." N Engi J Med
331:161---7.
Maier, R.M., I.L. Pepper, and C.P. Gerba, 2000, Environmental Microbiology. Academic
Press, San
Diego, CA.
Maunula, L., S. Kalso, C.1-I. Von Bonsdorff, A. Ponka, 2004, "Wading pool water
contaminated
with both noroviruses and astroviruses as the source of a
gastroenteritis outbreak," Epidemiology and Infection 132(4): 737-743.
McCullough, N.B.,
C.W. Eisele, 1951, "Experimental
human salmonellosis. I.
Pathogenicity of strains of
Salmonella n-teleagridis and Salmonella anaturn
obtained from Spray dried
whole egg." J
.
Infect
Dis 88:278-289.
Medema, GJ, HAM Ketelaars, and W Hoogenboezern, 2001, Cryptosporidium and
Giardia: Occurrence in Sewage, Manure and Surface Water. Association of River
Waterworks- RIWA, Amsterdam, 171pp.
Tim it wetdrpApril 2008
137

 
Geosynre&
consultants
Moore A.C., Herwaldt 8.1.,., Craun G.F., Calderon R.L., Highsmith A.K., Juranek D.D.,
1993, Surveillance for waterborne disease outbreaks-United States, 1991-1992.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 42:1-22.
Morens D..M., R.M. Zweighaft, T,M. Vernon, C.W. Cary, J.J. Eslien, B.T. Wood, et al.,
1979, "A waterborne outbreak of gastroenteritis with secondary person-to-person
spread. Association with a viral agent." Lancet 1:964--6.
National Research Council (NRC). 1994. Science and Judgment in Risk Assessment.
National Academy Press, Washington, DC."
Newman, R.D., S.X. Zu., T. Wuhib, A.A.M. Lima, R.L. Guerrant, C.L. Sears, 1994,
Household Epidemiology of Cryptosporidium parvuln Infection in an Urban
Community in Northeast Brazil. Volume 120 Issue 6, Pages 500-505.
O'Brien SB, Duffy G, Carney E, Sheridan JJ, McDowell DA, 2005, "Prevalence: and
Numbers of Escherichia coli 0157 on Bovine Hides at a Beef Slaughter Plant." J
Food Prot. Apr;68(4):660-5.
Ontario Ministry of the Environment, 1984, Guidelines for Canadian Recreational Water
Quality Cat, H49-70/199 I E, ISBN 0-660-14239-1
Ott,
W. 1995. Environmental Statistics and Data Analysis.
Boca Roton, Fl. Lewis
Publishers, Inc.
Parry, S.M„ R.L. Salmon, 1998, "Sporadic STEC 0157 infection: secondary household
transmission in Wales." Emerg Infect Dis.;4:657-61.
PerLlski, L.T., 2005. Source Identification of Escherichia coli in the Little Calumet River
of Northwestern Indiana, Summer 2003. Board of Sanitary Commissioner, Gary
Sanitary District, Gary Indiana.
Perry, S, M, de la Luz Sanchez, P.K. Hurst, J. Parsonnet, 2005, "Household transmission
of gastroenteritis." Emerg Infect Dis. 11:7,04-0889.
Pickering, L.K., D.G. Evans, H.L. DuPont, J.J. Vollet 3rd, D.J. Evans Jr., 1981,
"Diarrhea caused by ,Shigcila, rotavirus, and Giardia in day-care centers:
prospective study." J Pediatr. 99:51-6.
Pouillot, R., P. Beaudeau
,
J.B.
Denis, F. Derouin, 2004, "A quantitative risk assessment
of waterborne cryptosporidiosis in Trance using second-order
Monte Carlo
simulation
."
Risk Analysis
24(1): 1-17.
Final
WetdryApil 2008
138

 
Geosyntecp
consultants
Rao, V.C, and J.L. Melnick, 1986, "Monitoring for viruses in wastewater and water, in
Environmental Virology, V.C. Rao and J.L. Melnick (eds.)," American Society
for
Microbiology, Washington, D.C.
Regli, S., J.B. Rose, C.N. Haas, C.P. Gerba, 1991, "Modeling the risk from Giardia and
viruses in drinking water
."
Journal of American Water Works Association 83(1 1):
76-84.
Rose, J.B., C.N. Haas and S. Regli, 1991, "Risk Assessment and Control of Waterborne
Giardiasis."
Am. J. Public health. June, 81(6): 709-713.
Schaub, S.A., R.K. Oshiro, 2000, "Public healt
h concerns
about
Calicivi
;uses
as
waterborne contaminants." J
Infect
Dis. 181 Suppl 2
:5374-80.
Seyfried, P.L., Brown, N.E., Cherwinsky, C.L., Jenkins, G.D., Cotter, D.A., Winner, J.M.
and Tobin, R.,S., 1984, "Impact of sewage treatment plant effluents on surface
waters." Can. J. Public Health 75:25-31.
Shinozaki, T., K. Araki, Y.
Fujita,
M. Kobayashi, T. Tajima, and T. Abe, 1991,
"Epidemiology
of enteric adenoviruses
40 and 41 in
acute gastroenteriths in
infants and
young children in the Tokyo are:a." Scand J Infect Dis, 23: 543-547.
Soller, J. A., A. W. Olivieri, J. Crook, R.C. Cooper, G. Tchobanoglous, R.T. Parkin,
R.C. Spear, J.N.S. Eisenberg, 2003, "Risk-based approach to evaluate the public
health benefit of additional wastewater treatment." Environmental Science and
Technology 37(9): 1882-1.891.
Steyn
M. P. Jagals, and B. Genthe, 2004, "Assessment of Microbial Infection Risks
Posed by Ingestion of Water During Domestic Water Use and Full-Contact
Recreation in a Mid-Southern African Region." Water Sci and Tech. 50(1):301-
308.
Swerdlow, D.L., B.A. Woodruss, and R.C. Brady, 1989, "A waterborne outbreak in
Missouri of Escherichia coli 0157:117 associated with bloody diarrhea and
death." Ann Intern. Med. 117:812-819.
Teunis, P. F. M., O.G. van der Heijden, J.W.B. van der
Giessen
,
A.H. Havelaar, 1996,
The dose-response
relation in human volunteers
for gastro-
intestinal pathogens.
Bilthoven,
The Netherlands,
National Institute
of Public
Health and the
Environment
(RIVM).
USACOE, 1994. Characterization of the Chicago River -- Summary Report of a Large
Telephone Survey, Economic Analysis Branch Planning Division, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Chicago Division. April, 1994.
Final
Wetdry
-
Ap3it M
139

 
Geosynte&
consultants
U.S.
Census Bureau, 2005. State & County Quick Facts: Cook County,
Illinois.
Available: http://quickfacts.census.gov/gfcl
/states
/1.7/17031.html.
U.S. Census Bureau, 2004, Income, Earnings, and Poverty From the 2004 American
Community Survey.
American Community Survey Reports. Issued August
2005. Available: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/acs-0Lpdf
Van, R., C.C. Wun, M.L. O'Ryan, D.O. Matson, L. Jackson, and L.K. Pickering, 1992,
"Outbreaks of human enteric adenovi
►•us
types 40 and 41 in Houston day care
centers." J Pediatr., 120: 516-521.
Van Heerden J, M.M. Ehlers, J.C. Viviers, W.O.K. Grabow, 2005, "Risk assessment of
adenoviruses detected in treated drinking water and recreational water." Journal
of Applied Microbiology. 99, 926-933
Wadell,
G.A., M. Allard, L. Johansson, 1. Svensson, Uhnoo, 1994, 1. Enteric
Adenoviruses.
New York, Marcel Dekker, Inc.
Ward, R.L., D.L. Bernstein, E.C. Young, J.R. Sherwood, D.R. Knowlton, G.M. Schiff,
1986, "Human rotavirus studies in volunteers: Determination of infectious dose
and serological responses to infection."
Journal of Infectious Diseases
154(5),
871.
Water Environment Research Foundation (WERE), 2004. Fvaluation of Microbial Risk
Assessment Techniques and Applications.
World Health Organization (WHO), 2003, Guideli€^es for Safe Recreational Waters:
Volume 1 - Coastal and Fresh-Waters. Geneva.
Xiao, L. H., Fayer, R., Ryan, U. and Upton, S. J., 2004,
"Cryptosporidium.
taxonomy:
Recent advances and implications for public health."
Clinical
Microbiology
Reviews
17(l): 72-97.
Final
Wetdry-April 2009
140

 
SECTION 5
TABLES

 
Table 5-1
.
UAA Gener
al Activity Groups and Risk Assessment Categories
UAA Activity Group
Risk Assessment Category
Canoe
Canoeing
Kayak.
Canoeing
^.
Scullin
Canoeing
.letski
_
Canoein
Power boat W
Pleasure Boating
Water taxi / tour boat
Pleasure Boating
Fishing from boat
w.µ.
Fishing
--
Fishing
Fishing
Evidence of usea
Fishing;
Passive Recreation
_
Fishin,
Wading'
-
Not Included
Swimming
^
Not Included
°
UAA survey includes observations or evidence of recent use/fishing in results,
h UAA observations of these uses were not included in a risk assessnten category

 
't'able 5-2. Proportion
of Users
in Each Risk Assessment
Activity Category by
Waterway
__^.,...^.
"_..^
Waterway
--
Risk Assessment Category
North Side
Calumet
Stickney
Canoeing
20.2%
-y
1.2%
0.5%
Fishing
_
72.2%
_
28.4%
47%r,
Pleasure Boating
7.6%
70.4%
-
52.5%

 
Table 5-3. Household Size for cook county,
Illinois
Household Sire
Percentile
2-person household
37.4%
^._.
3-person household
21.8%
4-person household
22.5%
5-person household
10.4%
6-person household
-- mm
5.2
%n
7-or-more person household
2.7°Io

 
Table 5.4. Incidental Ingestions Rate Percentiles
Percentiles
YyBoating
(
Rnl.,ihr
)
)
Fishing
(
ml,/hr)
Canoeing
(mL/hr)
- -10%
1.49
2.98
5.21
25%n
1.65
3.30
6.02
50%
1.90
3.79
7.52
75%
2.23
4.47
10.15
90%
2.64
5.28
14.16
95%
2.95
5.89
17.84
97.517b
3.26
6,51
21.99
100%
7.43
22.13
34.00

 
Table 5-5.
Summary of Dose-Response Parameters
Used for Risk Assessment
(Adapted from Haas, 1999;
and
Rose et aL, 1991)
_.,__._^_....^^.._^.^..
Beta-Poisson
Exponential
Patho
g
en
(a)
Ns©
(k)
Total Entei'ic Viruses
78.3
Adenovirus
-
-
78.3
Calicivirus
(norovirus)
0.2531
6.17
Cr yptosporidiuin
238
Criardia
50.5
Salmonella
0.3126
23600
Escytej iclda coli
0.1748
2.55E-06
_

 
Table 5-6
.
Summary of Secondary Attack Rates
Pathogen
-
Secondary
Attack hate
T
otal Enteric
Viruses
25% (assumed)('
...- ...... ........................_._..__.._........
- ...--
denovirus
ulicivirus
(
Norovirus
)
67% child 19% adult (3
8%
assumed) (-)
86%"'
Cryptosporidium
19
%141
,iardia
8-10% (25% assumed) (s)
S
almonella
25%
(assumed)
(6)
'scherichia coli
25% (assumed)(')
Notes:
1,
A secondary attack rate of 25% was used (Gerba, 2005). Enteric virus estimates vary depending on
organisrtt,
Virus independent estimates range from
9%u
(ferry
of
al., 2005) to 35% (EPA, 2000).
2.
Mean value from prospective studies in children (Van
of cll.,
1993) and within the range reported from
other studies (Fox
et al.,
1977).
3.
Reported secondary infectivity for norovirus (Gerba, 2005).
4.
Based on spread in urban farnilies (Newnkan
of al.,
1994).
5.
A secondary attack rate of 25%. was used (Gerba, 2005).
6.
A secondary attack race of 25%was used (Gerba, 2005). Several studies report secondary infection
(Parry et al., 1998; Kaplan et al., 1982). Family members with children ill from daycare report l 1%
attack rate (Pickering, 1981).
7.
A secondary attack rate of 25%u was used (Gerba, 2005). No general pathogenic strain secondary attack
rate identified in the literature.
General
E. coli
secondary spread estimated at 15% within families
(Party and Salmon, 1998).

 
Table 5-7. Fold Attenuation of Pathogen Concentration by Various Treatment
Methods
Pathogen
Ozonation
UV Irradiation
Chlorination
E. coli (
atho renic)
10000
10000
10000
A aeru ina.sa
100
10000
10000
Salmonella
10000
1000,
1000,
Enterococcus
pto.s )oridiutn
17.010Y
1001000
--
0_
5.9 "
Guardia
114.81
100
3.2"
Enteric virus
100000
11.7
100000
Calicivif'Us
_
_ _
100
_ 10000
100
Adenovirus
10011
1001
100
Notes:
Geometric mean of data (range) reported in Table 4-11.
n
Estimate based on professional judgment.

 
Table 5-8
,
Proportion of Weather Days
in Recreational Year"
Weather Conditions
Proportion of Season
Wet Weather
Wet/CSO events
0.40
24 hrs post wet weather
0.30
48 hrs post wet weather
0.15
---
Drsr
WV
ather
>48 hr ost wet weathet'
0.15
"
Recreational year includes dates from April to November; Data used to construct proportions bawd on
MWRDGC CSO and rain gauge records for the 2006 recreational year.

 
Table 5-9. Total Expected Illnesses per 1,000 Exposures Using Different Estimates
of Pathogen Concentrations with No Effluent Disinfection'
Exposure
Input
'
Waterway
Stickney
Calumet
Dry Weather
0.36
1.28
0.10
Wet Weather
2.78
2.34
--
0,36
Combined
Weather
Samples
1.53
1..74
0.20
' Includes all primary gastrointestinal illnesses froth
E. coli, Salmonella,
total enteric viruses, adenoviruses,
Giardia,
and
Gyptosporidiian
expected from the waterway exposures.
b
Waterway concentration inputs for the simulations were randomly selected (bootstrap sampled) from
datasets that include the indicated sample sets

 
Table 5-10
,
Criteria for Indicators of Bacteriological Densities
Single Sample Maximum
Allowable Density'-5
(counts
cr 100 mL
Lightly
Infrequently
Steady-
Moderate
Used Full
Used Full
State
Designated
Full Body
Body
Body
Geometric
Beach
Contact
Contact
Contact
Acceptable
Swimming-
Mean
Area
Recreation
Recreation
Recreation
Associated
Gastroenteritis
Indicator
(upper
(upper
(
upper
(
upper 95%
Rate per
1000 Swimmners`
Density
75%o C.I.)
82% C.I.)
90% CA.)
C,I.)
Freshwater
_ _
en.terococci
$
33'
61., ...' .
89
_
I08
151
E. core
8
1126'
235
2^^8
406
576
Marine Water
enter
•ococci
19
~ 35' . r.-
104
158
276
500
Notes:
1.
Calculated to nearest whole number using equation,
(mean
enterococei
density) Y antilogio I( illness ratcl1000 pgople + 6.29)/9.401
2.
Calculated to nearest whole nuinbCY using equation:
(mean E
,
coli density
) =
a€ttilo,ao [
,(
illliess rate
/] 000 people + 11.74)/9.40)1
3. Calculated
to nearest whole number using
,
equation:
(mean
enicrococci
density
)
= antilogio [(
illness rate/3000 people
+ 0.20}/9.40
4. Single sample
limit
andlop,o [indicator geometric + (Factor determined Crom areas under the normal probability curve; for the X
assuiried level of probability) x (loglo standard deviation)]
The appropriate factors for the indicated ono-sided confidence levels are:
75% C.I. - 0.675
82%v C.I. - 0.935
90% C.I. - 1.28
95%n C.., - 1.65
5.
Based on the observed log standard deviations during the EPA studies: 0.4 for freshwater E. toll and
enierococci
and 0.7 for marine water
enterococci.
E:aoh jurisdiction should establish its own standard
doviat.ion for its conditions, which would then vary the single-sample limit.
6.
EPA proposed acceptable illness rates are 14 per 1000 swimmers for freshwater users (Implementation
Guidance for Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria, May 2002 Draft. C-PA-823-B-02-003).
7. Source: EPA, 1986, Ambient Water Quality Criteria
for.Bacteria.

 
Table 5-11. Proportion of Recreational User Type Contributing to Gastrointestinal
Expected illnesses with No 1+ Muent Disinfection`
Recreational Use
Waterway
North Side
Stickney
Calumet
Canoeing
33.7%
8.33%
2.9%
Fishing
58.7 %n
53.1%
38.2%
Boating
7.6%
38,5%
58.8%
'
Based on combined waterway samples (upsteant and downstream) over the entire recreational season.

 
Table 5-12. Stratified Risk Estimates
--
Estimated Illness Rates Assuming Single
Recreational Use with No Effluent Disinfection
Illnesses per 1,004 Exposures for Combined Wet
and Dry Weather Samples
Recreational Use
North Side
Stickney
^
<^
Calumet
Canoeing
2.45
-
3.19
0.52
Fishing
1.42
1.90
0.31
Pleasure Boating
0.66
1.05
0.14

 
Geosyntec Consultants
Table 5-13.
Breakdown of Illnesses
per 1,
000 Exposures
for Combined Wet and
Dry Weather
Samples with
No Effluent
Disinfection
Primary
(
Secondary
)
Illnesses
_
Waterway
Pathogen
North Side
Stickney
Calumet
E. tali
(pathogenic)
0.1$ (0.1)
0.35 (0.1)
_
0.06 (0.0)
Salmonella
0.001 (0.0)
0.001 (0.0)
0.001 (0.0)
Giardia
0.1E (0.0)
0.04 (0.0)
0.005 (0.0)
Cryptospo?,idium
_^.
0.05 (0.0)
0.001 (0.0)
0.001 (0.0)
Enteric virus
--
0.002 (0.0)
0.002 (0.0)
^..
0.001 (0.0)
Adenovims-
0.41 (0.3)
0.1$ (0.1)
0.12 (0.1)
Calicivirus
0.'72 (2.2)
1.20 (3.7)
0.02 (0.1)
Illnesses Primary
--
(Secondary)
1.55 (2.6
)
1.77 (3.9)
_
0.21 (0.2)
Total Illnessesµ
Including Secondary
4.15
5.67
4.41

 
GeoSyntoc
Consultants
Table 5-14. Total Erected Primary
Illnesses per 1
,
000 Exposures under
Combined
Dry and
Wet Weather Using
Different Effluent Disinfection Techniques 1, 2
^^..
Waterway
North Side
Stickney
Calumet
No Disinfection
1.53
1.74
0.20
UV Irridation
1.32
1.48
0.17
Ozone
-
-
1.45
1.65
0.19
Chlorination
-- --1.43
1.63
0.19
t
Estimates based on geometric mean pathogen concentrations and central tendency estimates for exposure
assumptions.
Waterway pathogen concentrations were developed by the difference in wet and dry
disinfected concentrations.
'` InClnCle.3 all primary gastrointestinal illnesses from F.
soli, Salnionella,
total enteric viruses, adenoviruses,
Giar°dia,
and
Cryplosporidium
expected from the waterway exposures.

 
GeoSyntec Consultants
'T'able
5
-
15. I-Iseudontonas aeruginosa
Concentrations
by WRP'
Waterway Segment
and
Sampling Category'
Waterway
Sampling Category
North Side
StickneyV
Calumet
Dry
3670 ±7005
232 ±366
398 ±692
Wet
-
5426 ±1956
13507 ±14732
-- 8325 ±9484
WRP Outfallz
1350 t1184
4680 ±5379
3250 ±5111
t
Values are the arithmetic mean ± the standard deviation of all data within group.
Both dry and wet weather concentrations

 
GwSyntec Consultants
't'able 5-16, Sensitivity
Analysis
for Risks of Illness
in
WRP
Segments
Contribution to Variance
Input Assumptions
North Side
Stickney
Calumet
Receptor Type
0.018
0.443
0.380
Weather Type
0.045
0.153
0.053
Fishing Incidental Ingestion Rate
0.283
0.048
0.020
Fishing Exposure Duration
0.548
0,096
0.035
Canoeing Incidental Ingestion Rate
0.055
0.00,
0.0001
Canoeing Exposure Duration
0.041
0.001
0.0001
Pleasure
Boating Incidental
Ingestion Kate
0.002
0.048
0.101
Pleasure Boating Exposure
Duration
0.008
0.210
0.411

 
GeoSyntec Consultants
Table 5-I7. Parameter Sensitivity Analysis for North Side (Illnesses per 1000
Recreational Users)
Input Option
Input Assumptions
-
25%
Baseline
+25%
1.11
1.53
1.82
Ingestion Rate
(+19`/n)
1
.
11
1.82
1.53
Exposure Duration
(-28%)
(+191/0)
DRY
Baseline
WET
0.06
2,78
1.53
Weather "Type
(-96%)
(+8210)
1
Relative percent increase or decrease from Baselizie illness rate.

 
SECTION S
FIGURES

 
Figure 5-1
.
CWS Microbial
Risk Assessment Segments
Waterway is divided in three
Japer North
sections corresponding to the
5h3re uAanne
three water treatment plants
along the waterway.
low
a
r ti0'
th
Northside
vtc^re Ctoor.
Upper ktorth Bran ;h
Cfrr^.^o ^i,rar
'.
S
amp
l
e
L
oca
ti
on
Wastewater Treatment Plant
Chicago River
t.owrr North Brw,-,h
^^hrt,a^o Rwrr
Iaou;h Eran:h
^^hr[a^o Rr^er
JOut!1 rOrk
l
Stickney
{
^n^caao ^arra'v
9i) C3ra
Calumet
Fever
C^uhannel
Lttr Calumet
--
_
YY
?fit
LJkQ
G
^
lu
^ I
little
Celun"et
Calumet
Last
Gran
.
Calumet
.-
r

 
Figure 5-2. Incidental
Ingestion
Rate Distribution for Canoeists (mL/hr)
Forecast: C16
100,000 THals
Frequency Chart
96,886 Displayed
.031
r
_.
'
3087
J023
C1
L
as
015
p 08
000 A
0.25
4.18
8.11
Intake Rate
(mL/hr)
[vote:
12.03
771.7
0
Range of values for variable ingestion input distribution is 0 to 30
mL/hr.
Figure is truncated to better
show the distribution shape.Total ingestion rate includes the variable portion shown in the Figure plus a
fixed
4 m1-/hr
incidental ingestion.

 
Figure 5-3. Duration Distribution for Canoeists

 
Figure 5-4. Estimated Pathogen Concentration between Wet and Dry Sampling
Events
0
24
48
72
Time After Wet Weather Event (hrs)

 
ATTACHMENT A
Dry And Wet Weather Bacteria Correlations In The Chicago
Area Waterway System

 
Geosyn.tec"
consultants
LIST OF TABLES
Table A-1:
Dry Weather Pearson'
s/Spearman
's
Correlations for
Enterococcus,
E.coli
and Fecal coliform
Table A-2:
Wet and Dry Weather Pearson's Correlations for
Ewerococcus, Ia.coli
Pseudomonas aerugino,sa
,
Salmonella
and Decal coliform
Table A-3:
Dry Weather Geometric Mean Concentrations for E.c
oli and
Fecal Coliform
(CFU/ 100mL)
Table A-4:
Wet Weather Geometric Mean Concentrations for
E.coli
and Fecal Coliform
(CFU/ 100mL)
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure A-1:
Matrix
Plots of Dry
Weather Instream (UPS and DNS) Bacteria
Concentrations
Figure A-2: Scatter Plot of Dry Weather Indicator Concentrations to Fecal coliform
Figure A-3:
Marginal Plot of Dry Weather
E.coli
Vs Fecal coliform
Figure A-4: Scatter Diagram of Dry Weather EC Vs FC and EN Vs PC, by Site and
Location
Figure A-5: Dry Weather Tests for Normality of [Log (I C/FCI).I by Site and Location.
Figure A-6:
E.Coli:
Fecal coliform Dry Weather Ratio Estimates
Figure A-7:
Matrix Plots of Wet Weather Instream (UPS and DNS) and Outfall Bacteria
Concentrations

 
GeosyntecQ
consultants
A. INTRODUCTION
Recent studies indicate that there is a poor correlation between
,
bacteria indicator levels and
levels of human pathogenic bacteria, viruses and protozoa
(
Noble
et al.,
2006; Noble and
1~uhrman et al., 2001; Hardwood
cat
al.,
2005; Jiang
el al.,
2001, and Hbrman
et al,,
2004).
The
Geosyntee Team is not aware of any published results in the technical review literature that
indicate statistically significant correlations between indicator bacteria and protozoa or virus
pathogens.
Figure A-1 is a matrix plot of the dry weather bacteria results, which is a simple way of
presenting a series of scatter plots.
A matrix plot
is used to visually discern correlations between
multiple factors (
or in
this case, bacteria types). Each plot is to be read with the y-axis parameter
shown on the right of each row and the x
-
axis parameter shown on the top of each column. For
this correlation analysis, relationships between various bacteria parameters were investigated,
with the initial hypothesis that various bacteria concentrations may be proportional to one
another
,
as each is used as an indicator of magnitude of raw sewage contamination.
The matrix plots demonstrate that in dry weather samples there is a generally poor correlation
between bacteria
types
,
as evidenced by the low or negatively sloped trend lines
(
a relatively flat
trend line would indicate random or unexplainable scatter), and the poor data fits to these trend
lines.
All instream results
(
i.e., "downstream
"
and "upstream
"
samples) are aggregated together
here for the purpose of maximizing data robustness.
The objective of generating scatter plots is to identify relationships between fecal coliform and
other pathogen concentrations
.
The reason for this is that there is a very large arnount of historic
District data for fecal coliform, and therefore if some clear and consistent trends or ratios -
whether these are site specific or general in applicability - could be discerned, then the historic
fecal coliform concentration data could perhaps be extrapolated to generate concentration
statistics for other pathogens.
Given the modest correlations between E.
coli
and fecal coliform and
Enterococcus
and fecal
coliform as identified in the matrix plots, the two scatter plots discussed below were generated to
Final Attachmom A
A-1

 
Geosyntec °
consultants
further investigate these two relationships,
Through the matrix, plot analysis, all other bacteria
combinations had insignificant correlations.
The first scatter plot (Figure Awl) shows approximately linear relationships between dry weather
E. coli
and fecal coliform and between
Enterococcus
and fecal coliforin.
The correlation
between E.
coli
and fecal coliforin has a better fit than the correlation between
Enterococcus and
fecal coliforin as evidenced by the higher R2 value (0.78 compared to 0.54).
Figure A-3 is a "marginal" scatter plot that further investigates the E.
soli
vs. fecal colifor€r€
relationship via scatter plot, but adds frequency histograms to demonstrate the probability
distributions of the two datasets. Figure A-3 is in arithmetic space, in contrast to the scatter plot
in
Figure
A-2, which is in log space. Figure A-3 shows a €nodest positive relationship between
the two bacteria groups
(E, coli
and fecal coliform).
Figure A-3 also demonstrates that both
datasets are strongly left-skewed, implying distributions that may be lognormal.
To further investigate the relationship between dry weather E.
coil
and
Enterococcus
vs. fecal
coliforin, two correlation coefficients were computed: Spearman's and Pearson's. The Pearson's
correlation coefficient is a parametric statistic, while the Spearman
'
s rank correlation is a non-
parametric statistic (Helsel and Hirsch, 2002
).
Both are used because each has its own
advantages and disadvantages
.
The Spearman
'
s
correlation statistic is capable of indicating
correlations even when the underlying relationship is non-linear
.
It can also be used in situations
where the data is censored
.
Alternatively
,
the Pearson's correlation statistic is capable of
indicating the strength of linear associations
.
A summary of these statistical values
(
for the log
transformed dataset) by site, location, and bacteria combination is presented in Table A-1.
Values above 0.7 are shown in bold, as they are considered indicative of reasonably good
correlations (Helsel and Hirsch, 2002).
The results described above demonstrate a reasonable
E. coli
to fecal coliforin (or " FC:FC")
correlation at the North Sidc-upstream and Stickney
-
downstream location
-
site combinations,
Also identified is the correlation at the Stickney
-
downstream location for
Enterococcus
vs. fecal
coliforin.
Of these, the EC:FC correlation for the Stickney-downstream combination
Fitul Attachment A
A-2

 
Geosynte&
consultants
demonstrated the best correlation. Calumet locations showed no correlations. It should be noted
that all three correlations were consistently identified by both the Spearman's and Pearson's
statistics.
However, the reader should be cautioned that each of these site-location combination
correlation statistics were developed based on only ten dry weather samples, and therefore don't
represent particularly robust statistics.
The purpose of testing the correlation coefficients at each location is to determine
i
f reliable EC;
FC and
EN:FC
ratios could be determined
.
As described previously, such ratios could be useful
for estimating E.
roli
or
Enterococcus
concentrations when only fecal coliform concentrations
are available
(
or in this case
,
when fecal coliform datasets are more robust
).
However
,
based on
the correlation checks by visual
(
using scatter plots
)
and statistical
(
using correlation statistics)
approaches
,
there only appear to be a few bacteria
-
site-location combinations where these
correlations may be strong enough to develop reliable ratios.
Figure A-4 is included to further investigate these site-specific EC:FC correlations. This scatter
diagram shows dry weather E.
cols
to fecal coliform results for each site (WRP)-location (UPS,
DNS, OUTFALL) combination. The slope of each trend line approximates the "average" EC:FC
ratio.
The charts in Figure A-4 confirm the Spearman's and Pearson's correlation statistics shown in
Table A-1 in that the Stick ney-downstream and North Side-upstream site-location combinations
in particular show the best correlations for EC:FC, with the Stickney-downst.rearn site-location
combination showing the best correlation for EN:FC.
Given the fundamental assumption of lob-normality upon which this approach is based, the
distribution
must first be tested prior to proceeding with implementation of the method.
Therefore, a test of normality was performed on the log-transformed ratios (i.e., E.
coli
concentrations divided by fecal coliform concentrations) dataset. The test results for all six site-
location combinations are shown in Figure A-S. P-values near 1 (using the Anderson-Darling
normality test), combined with observed linearity in the dataset; indicate normality. Tests on all
Final Attach mcm A
A-3

 
Gcosyntec°
consultants
six site-location combinations confirm that the log (EC:FC) ratios are normally distributed, or
that the raw EC:FC ratios are indeed log-normally distributed.
The mean values of the log-normally distributed ratio datasets were then determined for each
site-location combination
,
with the results shown in Figure A-6. The results indicate that mean
upstream ratios are consistently higher than corresponding downstream ratios.
However
,
initial
statistical test results indicate that the datasets are not robust enough to confirm significant
difference between these upstream and downstream ratios
(
i.e., no rejection of null hypothesis).
A matrix plot of all wet weather results is shown on Figure
A-7. The
results indicate that there is
a good correlation between fecal coliform and the other bacteria measured
.
The correlation of
bacteria in wet weather
samples is
statistically better compared to the dry weather samples (see
Table A-2).
When comparing the FC and EC geometric concentration under dry and wet weather (see Tables
A-3 and A-4, respectively), it is revealed from the data that there is a higher FC concentration
increase in the North Side and Stickncy downstream segments of the waterway compared to EC
under wet weather conditions. The ratio of the geometric mean (EC/FC) for these two sites is
approximately 0.21 to 0.26 indicating that during wet weather condition only 21 to 26 percent of
the fecal coliform is
E,coli.
During dry weather condition, about 43 to 52 percent of the fecal
coliform is
E.coh.
In previous studies, the District estimated the EC
/
FC ratio to be between 0.84
and 4.97, indicating that 84 to 97 percent of the FC is
Ecoli
in the District WRP final effluent
(MWRDGrC, 2004). The lower EC/FC estimates in wet weather condition could be attributed to
non-point sources of the pollution not impacted by the outfall in the North Side and Stickncy
segments of the waterway.
Fina! Attachment A
A-4

 
Geosynte&
consultants
References
Hardwood, V.I., A.D. Levine, T.M. Scott, V. Chivukula, J. Lukasik, S.R. Farrah, and J.B. Rose, 2005,
"Validity of the Indicator Organism. Paradigm for the Pathogen Reduction in Reclaimed Water
and Public Health Protection."
Applied and En.virown.ental Microbiology,
June. 3163-3170.
Helsel D. R. and R.M. Hirsch, 2002, Techniques Of Water Resources Investigations Of The United
States
Geological Survey.
Book 4, Hydrological Analysis And Interpretation.
Chapter 3,
Statistical
Methods
In
Water
Resources
.
USGS publication
available
at:
http://water.us
g
s(aoyfpubs/twi,i/twri4a3/.
September.
Horman, A., R. Rimhanen
-
Finne, L. Maunula, C.H
.
von Bonsdorff, N. Torvela, A. Heikinheimo, and
M.L. Hanninen, 2004,
"Campylobacter-
spp.,
Giardia spp., Cryptosporidi.uin
spp., Noroviruses,
and Indicator Organisms in Surface Water in Southwestern Finland, 2000-2001."
Applied and
Environmental Microbiology.
57-95.
Jiang, S., R, Noble and W. Chu, 2001, "Human Adenoviruses and. Coliphages in Urban Runoff -
Impacted Coastal Waters of Southern California."
Applied and Environmental Microbiology,
January, 179-184.
Metropolitan
Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago {MWRDGC), 2004, Estimation of the
E.soli
to Fecal Coliform
Ratio in
Wastewater Effluent and Ambient Waters, Report No. 04- 10.
Noble, R.T., J.F. Griffith, A.D. Blackwood, J.A. Fuhrman, J.B. Gregory, X. Hernandez, X. Liang, A.A.
Bera and K. Schiff, 2006, "Multi-tiered Approach using Quantitative PCR To Track Sources of
Fecal
Pollution Affecting
Santa
Monica Bay, California."
Applied
Envirownental
Microbiology,
February. 1604-1612.
Noble, R,T., J.A. Fuhrrnan, 2001, "Enteroviruses Detected by Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain.
Reaction from the Coastal Waters of Santa Monica Bay, California: Low Correlation to
Bacterial Indicator Levels."
Hydrobiologia
460: 175-184.
Final Attachment A
A-5

 
ATTACHMENT A
TABL
E
S

 
Table A-1. Dry Weather Pearson's/Spearman's Correlations for
Enterococcus, E.C01i
and Fecal
colifortn
Lo S
p
ace
DNS
U PS
Site
Correlation
E-C vs PC
EN vs FC
EC vs FC
EN vs 1~C
North Side
Pearson's
S Barman's
0.46
0.28
-0.83
-0.54
0.75
0.71
0,36
0.55
Stickney
Pearson's
S carman'
s
0.87
0.81
0
.71
0.7$
0.34
0.34
0.39
y
0.32
Calumet
Pearson's
Sl)carman's
0.12
0.17
-0.01
0.16
-0.33
-0.20
-0,34
-0.29
Note:
EC=
E.cn1i
BN,-=Enterococcus
FC=Fecal coliform

 
Table A-Z. Wet
and Dry Weather Pearson
's Correlations for
Enterococcus, E.coli,
Pseu
d
onionas aeruginosa
,
Salmonella
and Fecal coliform
Wet Weather Bacteria Correlation
EC
EN
FC
PA
SA
EC
1
FN
0.85
1
FC
0.73
0.76
1
PA
0.73
0.84
0.65
1
SA
-0.17
-0.15
-0.12
-0.17
1
Dr
Weather Bacteria Correlation
EC
EN
FC
PA
SA
EC
1
EN
0.46
1
F'C
0.83
0.28
1
PA
0.19
0.05
0.09
1
SA
-0.12
-0.07
-0.14
-0.34
Note:
EC=
E.coli
FN=Eiiterocoecus
PA=Pseurlomon as aeruginosa
SA= Salmonella
F'C=Fecal coliforin

 
Table A,-3: Dry Weather Geometric Mean Concentrations
for E.coli
and Fecal
Coliform (CFU/X04mL)
Site
Location
Sampling Dates
Exoti
(
EC)
Fecal
Coliform
Ratio EC/FC
(FC)
-
North Side
UPS
7128/05-9101105
273
713
0.383
Outfall
7128105-9/01105
26,413
42,411
0.623
DNS
7/28/05-9101105
15,710
36,687
0.428
Stickney
UPS
8101/05-8/31/05
254
1,061
0.239
Outfall
8/01/05-8131/05
29,042
56,391
0.515
DNS
8101105-8/31/05
9,043
17,491
0.517
Calumet
UPS
7/26/05-8/30/05
71
170
0.418
Outfall
7/26/05-8/30/05
13,917
56,287
0247
DNS
7/26/05-8/30/05
1,370
3,520
0.389
Nows:
UPS = Upslrc:aln
DNS = Downstrearn

 
Table A-4:
Wet Weather Geometric Mead Concentrations for
Exo1i
and Fecal
C'.oliform
(CFI /IOOmL)
Site
Location
Sampling Dates
E
x
oli
(
EC)
Fecal
Coliform
Ratio EC/FC
(FC)
North Side
UPS
6126106-09/23/06
27,106
100,962
0.268
Outfall
6/26/0609/23/06
20,952
22,026
0.951
DNS
6/26/06-09123/06
24,262
117,399
0.207
Stickney
UPS
6/10106-10/11106
54,176
231,345
0.234
Outfall
6110/06-10/11/06
14,045
38,949
0.361
DNS
6110/06-10/11/06
45,101
172,819
0.261
Calumet
UPS
8124/06-10/17/06
6,073
19,165
0.317
Outfall
8/24/06.10/17/06
11,309
25,168
0.449
DNS
8/24/06-10/17/06
279
2,981
0.094
Notes:
LIPS = Upstrear))
DNS = Downstream

 
ATTACHMENT A
FIGURES

 
Figure A-1. Matrix Plots of Dry Weather Instream (UPS and DNS) Bacteria
Concentrations

 
Figure A-2
.
Scatter Plot of Dry Weather Indicator Concentrations to Fecal coliform
(In Log Space)
Note:
Enterococcus
is not a
pathogen; only
certain strains of
E. coli
are pathogenic.

 
Figure A-3.
Marginal
Plot of Dry Weather E.
coli
vs
Fecal coliforrn
Marginal Plot of EC vs FC
bd
100000
80000
60000
40000
20000
50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000
FC

 
Figure A-4.
Scatter Diagram of Dry Weather EC vs FC and FN vs FC, by Site and
Location
to
Northskle
-
Downstream
Ic.:a
to
Noltdsk* - Upstream
Tt
lr
1-0 100 5400 10000 100000
l
SO
100 1000 10000 100000
Foul Collform
9tlclmey
-
Downstream
Foul Conform
spew"
-
Upstream
tsorthsWa
- Dowletrdm
100000,
4klafey
-
Dowl•tream
16
14
140
1060
l
ow MOM
Foul C.11Form
Calumet
-
Downstream
i
L
10
IN IOEO 10000 100000
reol C.n llfarm
200
Calumet - Dmmtreaml
F0
l6v
i
W !o
1
t
so
IN 1004 I46oo 100000
real CeUform
1o
toe
1006 10000 IOO400
Four Cullfcrm
Oo0
10000
FoaF Callform
]t
1 t0
tW 1000
10006 100460
Foal C411rorm
9tklmey
- Upstream
10 100
1000 10000 .00000
Font C411farm
10
100 1000
10000 100000
Fool Celirerm

 
Figure A-5. Dry Weather
Tests
For Normality
of [Log {EGFQ]
by Site and
Location
and
ezao^
Xb
A QZi
MY.
"V
N. eW -"G
novae
-
DNS
NorftW-LPS
L
Ls
-LO
4s
no
ns
UOQM
ak"
-
OHS
was - 95%a
wml. 95%a
99
C
r,n are
and asa
Xb
A
Ow
A- O
Y^
6
10
1
O
-2
-I
0
1
2
LOg8CAq
Sudow- LPS
wxr - 9s%a
rr^ ara
sa.
aam
C
9J
x
n
A
^W
OYx.
OID
q^
a
;JJ
ro
-LO
9)
u
1
Us
no
ns
z
o
z
WMM
wnll • 95%a
99
90
9
y
8 ^
6
a
1
erg aan
and aaee
nn
i0 6R
dUi
OIDI
-Z
otunvt - LPs
wnd • 9S%Q

 
Figure A-6.
E. coli:
Fecal
coliform
(EC:FQ Dry Weather
Ratio Estimates
1.40
1.20
1.00
0.40
0.20
0.00
n
DNS
n
UPS
0.79
Calumet
0.73
Mrthside
Stickney

 
Figure A-7. Matrix Plots of Wet Weather
Instrearn
(UPS and DNS)
and Outfall
Bacteria Concentrations

Back to top