We analyzed pepper mild mottle virus (PMMoV) in 36 samples taken from surface water, wastewater, groundwater, tap water and bottled water in Hanoi, Vietnam. We then compared the occurrence and fates of PMMoV with pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs), which are known wastewater tracers. PMMoV was detected in 94% of the surface water samples (ponds, water from irrigated farmlands and rivers) and in all the wastewater samples. The PMMoV concentration ranged from 5.5×10(6)-7.2×10(6)copies/L in wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) influents, 6.5×10(5)-8.5×10(5)copies/L in WWTP effluents and 1.0×10(4)-1.8×10(6)copies/L in surface water. Among the sixty PPCPs analyzed, caffeine and carbamazepine had high detection rates in surface water (100% and 88%, respectively). In surface water, the concentration ratio of PMMoV to caffeine remained unchanged than that in WWTP influents, suggesting that the persistence of PMMoV in surface water was comparable to that of caffeine. The persistence and the large concentration ratio of PMMoV in WWTP influents to the method detection limit would account for its ubiquitous detection in surface water. In comparison, human enteric viruses (HEV) were less frequently detected (18-59%) than PMMoV in surface water, probably because of their faster decay. Together with the reported high human feces-specificity, our results suggested that PMMoV is useful as a sensitive fecal indicator for evaluating the potential occurrence of pathogenic viruses in surface water. Moreover, PMMoV can be useful as a moderately conservative fecal tracer for specifically tracking fecal pollution of surface water. PMMoV was detected in 38% of the groundwater samples at low concentrations (up to 19copies/L). PMMoV was not detected in the tap water and bottled water samples. In groundwater, tap water and bottled water samples, the occurrence of PPCPs and HEV disagreed with that of PMMoV, suggesting that PMMoV is not suitable as an indicator or a tracer in those waters.

Repeated pressurization caused integrity loss at the surface of reverse osmosis membranes resulting in a dramatic decrease in virus removal.

No abstract

No abstract

Since urban water supply is not yet available for every inhabitant in Hanoi City, numerous residents look for alternative sources such as groundwater and rainwater to compensate the supply shortage.However, in parts of Hanoi, it was reported that groundwater is polluted by various contaminants including arsenic (As) and ammonia (NH 4 -N). Therefore, numerous types of point-of-use (POU) water treatment systems have been used in households, but treatment efficiency has not been well documented. Hence, this study aims to investigate the proliferation and efficiency of household treatment systems. One hundred and seventy households from three communes were selected for a survey of questionnaires and face-to-face interviews. Twenty-four household water treatment systems from six communes were monitored for water sample collection and analysis. The results indicate that sand filter (SF), ceramic filter (CF), microfiltration (MF), anion exchange (AX) and reverse osmosis (RO) were popular POU water treatment systems, but removal efficiency varied among different treatment processes. Groundwater quality shows an average As concentration of 71 μg/L (max. 305 μg/L) and 81% of these samples had As concentration higher than the World Health Organization guideline value of 10 μg/L. An integration of SF and RO can guarantee water with As concentration below 10 μg/L, whereas AX, MF and CF did not remove As at all.