Disinfectant efficacy of chlorite and chlorine dioxide in drinking water biofilms

Gagnon, Graham A.; Rand, Jennie L.; O’Leary, Kevin C.; Rygel, Adrienne Claire.; Chauret, Christian; Andrews, Robert C.

doi:10.1016/j.watres.2005.02.004

Cited by 121 publications

(60 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Water points have not revealed any presence of total coliform in the three seasons; this is because regular chlorination of water was observed in all tanks from which water was distributed by pipeline to water points and net pipes are checked regularly by water and sanitation workers on these camps. Chlorine is a powerful germicide safeguarding against contamination (Gagnon et al 2005). All water points revealed residual chlorine between 0.3 and 0.5 mg/l although sodium thiosulphate was added to the sample bottle for inactivation of chlorine action.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bacteriological quality of drinking water in Nyala, South Darfur, Sudan

Abdelrahman

Eltahir

2010

Environ Monit Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objective of this study was to determine the bacterial contaminations in drinking water in Nyala city, South Darfur, Sudan with special reference to the internally displaced people camps (IDPs). Two hundred and forty water samples from different sites and sources including bore holes, hand pumps, dug wells, water points, water reservoir and household storage containers were collected in 2009. The most probable number method was used to detect and count the total coliform, faecal coliform and faecal enterococci. Results revealed that the three indicators bacteria were abundant in all sources except water points. Percentages of the three indicators bacteria count above the permissible limits for drinking water in all samples were 46.4% total coliform, 45.2% faecal coliform and 25.4% faecal enterococci whereas the highest count of the indicators bacteria observed was 1,600 U/100 ml water. Enteric bacteria isolated were Escherichia coli (22.5%), Enterococcus faecalis (20.42%), Klebsiella (15.00%), Citrobacter (2.1%) and Enterobacter (3.33%). The highest contamination of water sources was observed in household storage containers (20%) followed by boreholes (11.25%), reservoirs (6.24%), hand pumps (5.42%) and dug wells (2.49%). Contamination varied from season to season with the highest level in autumn (18.33%) followed by winter (13.75%) and summer (13.32%), respectively. All sources of water in IDP camps except water points were contaminated. Data suggested the importance of greater attention for household contamination, environmental sanitation control and the raise of awareness about water contamination.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bacteriological quality of drinking water in Nyala, South Darfur, Sudan

Abdelrahman

Eltahir

2010

Environ Monit Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Sufficient prerinsing and cleaning to remove material deposits reduces the loss of applied chemicals during processing (Simões et al, 2010;Van Houdt and Michiels, 2010). There are some additional parameters that determine the efficiency of disinfectants against biofilms compared to bacteria in suspended state, such as diffusion capacity, reaction with exopolymeric substances, biofilm density and age, and fluid flow conditions (Gagnon et al, 2005;Jang et al, 2006;Vaid et al, 2010;Van Houdt and Michiels, 2010). This means that the most efficient disinfectant against planktonic cells in a certain case does not necessarily exhibit the best performance in preventing and destroying biofilms.…”

Section: Biofilmsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Selection Criteria for Water Disinfection Techniques in Agricultural Practices

Haute

Sampers

Jacxsens

et al. 2013

Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper comprises a selection tool for water disinfection methods for fresh produce pre- and postharvest practices. A variety of water disinfection technologies is available on the market and no single technology is the best choice for all applications. It can be difficult for end users to choose the technology that is best fit for a specific application. Therefore, the different technologies were characterized in order to identify criteria that influence the suitability of a technology for pre- or postharvest applications. Introduced criteria were divided into three principal components: (i) criteria related to the technology and which relate to the disinfection efficiency, (ii) attention points for the management and proper operation, and (iii) necessities in order to sustain the operation with respect to the environment. The selection criteria may help the end user of the water disinfection technology to obtain a systematic insight into all relevant aspects to be considered for preliminary decision making on which technologies should be put to feasibility testing for water disinfection in pre- and postharvest practices of the fresh produce chain.

show abstract

“…Biofilms predominate because attached cells have certain advantages over planktonic cells, such as the ability to metabolize recalcitrant organic compounds [1] and increased resistance to chlorine and other biocides [4 ,11]. Disinfection with chlorine dioxide and chlorite, for example, can reduce the concentration of planktonic bacteria, but have little to no effect on the concentration of biofilm bacteria [12]. The mechanism behind the observed resistance of biofilm cells to disinfection is unknown, although hypotheses include mass transfer resistance [13], the formation of persister cells [14], and protection owing to the production of extracellular polymeric substances [15].…”

Section: The Importance Of Biofilmsmentioning

confidence: 99%