The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Validity of the Indicator Organism Paradigm for Pathogen Reduction in Reclaimed Water and Public Health Protection
Open accessAbstract
The validity of using indicator organisms (total and fecal coliforms, enterococci, Clostridium perfringens , and F-specific coliphages) to predict the presence or absence of pathogens (infectious enteric viruses, Cryptosporidium , and Giardia ) was tested at six wastewater reclamation facilities. Multiple samplings conducted at each facility over a 1-year period. Larger sample volumes for indicators (0.2 to 0.4 liters) and pathogens (30 to 100 liters) resulted in more sensitive detection limits than are typical of routine monitoring. Microorganisms were detected in disinfected effluent samples at the following frequencies: total coliforms, 63%; fecal coliforms, 27%; enterococci, 27%; C. perfringens , 61%; F-specific coliphages, ∼40%; and enteric viruses, 31%. Cryptosporidium oocysts and Giardia cysts were detected in 70% and 80%, respectively, of reclaimed water samples. Viable Cryptosporidium , based on cell culture infectivity assays, was detected in 20% of the reclaimed water samples. No strong correlation was found for any indicator-pathogen combination. When data for all indicators were tested using discriminant analysis, the presence/absence patterns for Giardia cysts, Cryptosporidium oocysts, infectious Cryptosporidium , and infectious enteric viruses were predicted for over 71% of disinfected effluents. The failure of measurements of single indicator organism to correlate with pathogens suggests that public health is not adequately protected by simple monitoring schemes based on detection of a single indicator, particularly at the detection limits routinely employed. Monitoring a suite of indicator organisms in reclaimed effluent is more likely to be predictive of the presence of certain pathogens, and a need for additional pathogen monitoring in reclaimed water in order to protect public health is suggested by this study.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cited by
Khatri, N., & Tyagi, S. (2015) · Frontiers in Life Science · doi:10.1080/21553769.2014.933716 · Cited by 1,081
Irrigation Waters as a Source of Pathogenic Microorganisms in Produce: A Review
Pachepsky, Y., Shelton, D. R., McLain, J. E. T., Patel, J., & Mandrell, R. E. (2011) · Advances in Agronomy · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-386473-4.00002-6 · Cited by 258
Ritter, R. L., Peprah, D., Null, C., Moe, C. L., Armah, G., Ampofo, J., Wellington, N., Yakubu, H., Robb, K., Kirby, A. E., et al. (2018) · The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene · doi:10.4269/ajtmh.17-0654 · Cited by 15
Microbial source tracking of fecal pollution to coral reef lagoons of Norfolk Island, Australia
Vanderzalm, J., Currie, S., Smith, W., Metcalfe, S., Taylor, N., & Ahmed, W. (2024) · Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.168906 · Cited by 8
Metadata
- Authors
- Harwood, V. J., Levine, A. D., Scott, T. M., Chivukula, V., Lukasik, J., Farrah, S. R., & Rose, J. B.
- Venue
- Applied and Environmental Microbiology
- Publisher
- American Society for Microbiology
- Published
- 2005-06
- Volume
- 71
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 3163-3170
- ISSN
- 0099-2240 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-5336
- OpenAlex
- W2075255587
- Cited by
- 568
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 26.07
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Validity of the Indicator Organism Paradigm for Pathogen Reduction in Reclaimed Water and Public Health Protection. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1128/aem.71.6.3163-3170.2005
- The paper
- Harwood, V. J., Levine, A. D., Scott, T. M., Chivukula, V., Lukasik, J., Farrah, S. R., & Rose, J. B. (2005). Validity of the Indicator Organism Paradigm for Pathogen Reduction in Reclaimed Water and Public Health Protection. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.71.6.3163-3170.2005
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.