Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 532

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 43 of the 43 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Ultraviolet Disinfection of Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria and Their Antibiotic Resistance Genes in Water and Wastewater

McKinney, Chad W., Pruden, Amy·2012·Environmental Science & Technology

Abstract

Disinfection of wastewater treatment plant effluent may be an important barrier for limiting the spread of antibiotic-resistant bacteria (ARBs) and antibiotic resistance genes (ARGs). While ideally disinfection should destroy ARGs, to prevent horizontal gene transfer to downstream bacteria, little is known about the effect of conventional water disinfection technologies on ARGs. This study examined the potential of UV disinfection to damage four ARGs, mec(A), van(A), tet(A), and amp(C), both in extracellular form and present within a host ARBs: methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium (VRE), Escherichia coli SMS-3-5, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa 01, respectively. An extended amplicon-length quantitative polymerase chain reaction assay was developed to enhance capture of ARG damage events and also to normalize to an equivalent length of target DNA (∼1000 bp) for comparison. It was found that the two Gram-positive ARBs (MRSA and VRE) were more resistant to UV disinfection than the two Gram-negative ARBs (E. coli and P. aeruginosa). The two Gram-positive organisms also possessed smaller total genome sizes, which could also have reduced their susceptibility to UV because of fewer potential pyrimidine dimer targets. An effect of cell type on damage to ARGs was only observed in VRE and P. aeruginosa, the latter potentially because of extracellular polymeric substances. In general, damage of ARGs required much greater UV doses (200-400 mJ/cm² for 3- to 4-log reduction) than ARB inactivation (10-20 mJ/cm² for 4- to 5-log reduction). The proportion of amplifiable ARGs following UV treatment exhibited a strong negative correlation with the number of adjacent thymines (Pearson r < -0.9; p < 0.0001). ARBs surviving UV treatment were negatively correlated with total genome size (Pearson r < -0.9; p < 0.0001) and adjacent cytosines (Pearson r < -0.88; p < 0.0001) but positively correlated with adjacent thymines (Pearson r > 0.85; p < 0.0001). This suggests that formation of thymine dimers is not the sole mechanism of ARB inactivation. Overall, the results indicate that UV is limited in its potential to damage ARGs and other disinfection technologies should be explored.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1021/es303652q

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 43 references

Cited by

See all 532

Metadata

Authors
McKinney, C. W., & Pruden, A.
Venue
Environmental Science & Technology
Published
2012-11-29
Volume
46
Issue
24
Pages
13393-13400
ISSN
  • 0013-936X (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-5851
OpenAlex
W2064121493
Cited by
532
References
43
FWCI
9.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Ultraviolet Disinfection of Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria and Their Antibiotic Resistance Genes in Water and Wastewater. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1021/es303652q
The paper
McKinney, C. W., & Pruden, A. (2012). Ultraviolet Disinfection of Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria and Their Antibiotic Resistance Genes in Water and Wastewater. Environmental Science & Technology. https://doi.org/10.1021/es303652q

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.