Simultaneous effect of temperature (T), salinity (S), and solar radiation (UVA and PAR) on the T90 of
Abstract
We investigated separate and simultaneous effect of temperature, salinity and solar radiation, as well as bacterial strain and origin on Escherichia coli (E. coli) survival in seawater in experimental conditions. The experiments were carried out by placing the bottles filled with seawater of different salinity (15.0, 30.0 and 36.5 psu) and contaminated by bacterial cultures in three light‐protected air incubators set to different temperatures (6, 12, 18 and 24°C), or by placing the bottles in plastic containers filled with water of controlled temperature and exposing them to direct solar light. In experiments in the dark, two typed and two wild E. coli strains were tested. The mean T90 values were 33.55 h for E. coli ATCC 8739, 42.50 h for E. coli ATCC 35218, 72.8 h for E. coli originating from seagull feces and 278.6 h for E. coli originating from sewage, indicating differences between survival abilities among strains. The effect of temperature on T90 was significant only in seagull E. coli at 36.5 psu and sewage E. coli at 30.0 psu and was positive. The effect of salinity was significant only in seagull strain and also was positive. No interactive effect of temperature and salinity was recorded. Experiments in the presence of solar radiation, carried out with two ATCC E. coli strains, demonstrated its dominate harmful effect on bacterial cells, reducing T90 of both strains to 0.30–0.82 h for E. coli ATCC 35218 and 0.31–5.93 h for E. coli ATCC 8739. Within the ultraviolet A (UVA) and photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) spectrum of solar radiation, the wavelengths of 320–360 nm were found as most bactericidal. By comparing survival of cultivated E. coli cells to those in natural seawater samples, significantly higher survival E. coli cells in natural seawater samples was found.
Keywords
- Escherichia coli
- bacterial strain
- survival
- temperature
- salinity
- solar radiation
1. Introduction
Fecal pollution of seawater can present a serious problem due to potentially introducing of intestinal pathogens—bacterial, viral, and parasitic. Because of a wide variety of pathogenic microorganisms that can enter the sea, time‐consuming and complex procedures of their determination, the assessment of microbiological quality of seawater has traditionally been based on the determination of indicator microorganisms, bacteria that suggest the presence of pathogens [1]. In the last decade, European Union member states have accepted
When released into the sea,
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Experiments with pure bacterial cultures
Bacterial cultures used in experiments were always freshly prepared by incubation of pure culture on mineral‐modified glutamate broth (MMGB). Bacterial suspensions were taken in the exponential phase of growth and serially diluted in phosphate buffer solution. After determination of the concentration of
Experiments in the dark were performed in two sets. In the first set, experiments were carried out at six different experimental conditions corresponding to Adriatic sea natural range of temperatures (12°C—mean winter temperature, 18°C—mean spring and autumn temperature and 24°C—mean summer temperature) and salinities (30.0 psu—lower salinity corresponding to areas near the mouth of rivers or sewage outfalls and 36.5 psu—typical salinity in coastal seawater). Two different
In the second set, additional experiments were performed at lower temperature (6°C) and lower salinity (15 psu). Two new bacterial strains were also introduced—wild
Experiments in the presence of solar radiation were performed with two ATCC
All experiments were performed in triplicates. The initial concentrations of culturable
2.2. Experiments with natural samples
Natural samples of moderately polluted seawater were collected near sewage outfalls and were stored at 4°C. Sampling was performed in the morning (9 o’clock AM) and at noon. The number of culturable
2.3. E. coli determination
The concentration of
2.4. Statistical analysis
Data were processed using statistical package Statistica 8.0 (StatSoft Inc., 2007). High and significant (
where
The inactivation energy S90 (the insolation required to reduce culturability by 90%) was calculated by Eq. (3),
where
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Experiments in the absence of solar radiation
In the natural range of temperature and salinity, the T90 values in this study were 31.9–51.7 h (mean 42.5 h) for
The results of two‐way ANOVA revealed that there were no statistically significant (
Most studies showed a negative correlation between survival time of indicator bacteria, including
Although not statistically significant,
Anderson et al. [7] found significant differences in the survival of indicator bacteria,
In seagull
3.2. Experiments in the presence of solar radiation
The intensity of solar radiation in this study was in the range 258–693 Wm−2, with a mean contribution of the UVA spectrum of 9.3–11.1%. In the experiments carried out in the laboratory, a strong (
Because of inadequate weather conditions (a relative cloudy sky), in situ experiments were carried out at lower intensities of solar radiation. We also found a strong vertical decline in the intensity of solar radiation (UVA and PAR) and a significant decrease in the contribution of the UVA spectrum in the water column (Figures 5 and 6). Therefore, only a few data from surface layer could be used in our calculations. Unlike the experiments carried out in the laboratory, T90 of
According to the function, when
The negative effect of sunlight exposure was also confirmed in the study with wild cultures of
Solar light is considered to be the most important factor to bacterial reduction in the sea, although its effects are restricted to shallow depths [5], also observed in this study. The negative effects of solar radiation to bacterial cells operate via two different mechanisms: firstly, direct photobiological mechanisms break DNA bonds in bacterial cells [39, 40], while secondly, indirect photochemical mechanisms damage bacterial cells by photosensitized reactions initiated by some of endogenous and/or exogenous sensitizers [41]. Photochemical mechanisms become more important at higher wavelengths, and it is more injurious in the presence of oxygen [5]. Both effects cause a rapid decrease in colony forming ability [25, 26]. Dominant toxic effect of sunlight was also observed in previous studies. Šolić and Krstulović [4] found that within the investigated range of intensity of solar radiation (510–830 Wm−2), the T90 of fecal coliforms exponentially decreased by about 40% when the intensity of solar radiation increased by 100 Wm−2. Large differences (30‐ to 40‐fold) in survival with or without exposure to sunlight were observed by Fujioka et al. [25], who noted a T90 of fecal coliforms exposed to solar radiation in the range of 0.5–1.5 h. The reduction in survival time in the presence of solar radiation was also recorded by Chandran and Hatha [20], where the T90 of
According to Davies‐Colley et al. [42], T90 is a better indicator for expressing inactivation in the absence of solar radiation and also inactivation caused by solar radiation of an equable and higher irradiance, whereas the S90 better expresses the inactivation caused by solar radiation of variable intensity, as exists in nature. The energy of solar radiation absorbed by bacterial cells and which is responsible for cell injury is a product of the intensity of solar radiation and exposure time.
The mean values of S90 recorded in this study were 250 Whm−2 for
A high and significant correlation between the intensity of the UVA spectrum of solar radiation with T90 and S90 in this study suggests that within the studied spectrum of solar radiation, this part of the measured spectrum was most responsible for the inactivation of microorganisms. The linear regression‐slope coefficients suggested the wavelengths 320–360 nm to be the most bactericidal within the UVA spectrum (Table 2).
Wavelength (nm) | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
320–340 | 340–360 | 360–380 | 380–400 | 400–700 (PAR) | |
b | −0.147 | −0.124 | −0.072 | −0.052 | −0.001 |
0.442 | 0.663 | 0.848 | 0.848 | 0.192 | |
<0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 | >0.05 | |
b | −1.095 | −0.812 | −0.488 | −0.364 | −0.014 |
0.741 | 0.834 | 0.851 | 0.864 | 0.635 | |
<0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 |
Acra et al. [43] found that up to 70% of the solar inactivation of bacteria can be attributed to the effect of the UVA part of the solar radiation spectrum, whereas Sinton et al. [5] found that 50% of the inactivation of indicator microorganisms could be attributed to solar radiation wavelengths up to 360 nm, with a wavelength of about 330 nm being most bactericidal. Calkins and Barcelo [44] find the UVB (280–330 nm) portion of the solar spectrum the most bactericidal, causing direct photobiological DNA damage. Although bactericidal effect of solar radiation is mainly associated with shorten wavelengths, the synergistic effect of UVB, UVA, and PAR explained most variations found in culturability of
The values of S90 observed in this study were significantly lower than those in similar studies. S90 of fecal coliforms found by Gameson [22] was 1.290 Whm−2, whereas Sinton et al. [5] found a significantly higher value, 1.660 Whm−2 (6.0 MJm−2). Significant differences could be attributed to the different intensity of solar radiation and to variations in intensity, but also to different groups of microorganisms tested.
Lower T90 and S90 values in this study might partly be explained by the previous growth history of cell cultures until exposure to the environment, different origin and strain of bacterial cells, as well as by the different intensity of solar radiation and other environmental factors. There are many ways in which bacterial cells can enter the sea. In some cases, they are discharged directly from boats or bathers, and in others, they remain for different periods in wastewater reservoirs and/or are carried out in the sea through natural rivers or artificial conduits [14]. The change from a nutrient‐rich environment to nutrient‐poor one, places
As mentioned previously,
4. Conclusions
This study showed that in the absence of solar radiation, there were no statistically significant effects of temperature and salinity in their natural range (12, 18 and 24°C; 30.0 and 36.5 psu) on the survival of two ATCC strains. The survival of
References
- 1.
Berg G, editor. The indicator system. Indicators of Viruses in Water and Food. Ann Arbor: Ann Arbor Science Publishers; 1978. pp. 1-13. doi:10.1002/jobm.19800200609 - 2.
The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific rules for the organisation of official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption. Official Journal of the European Union. 2004;L226:83-127. - 3.
The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. Directive 2006/7/EC of 15 February 2006 concerning the management of bathing water quality and repealing directive 76/160/EEC. Official Journal of the European Union. 2006;L64:37-51. - 4.
Šolić M, Krstulović N. Separate and combined effects of solar radiation, temperature, salinity and pH on the survival of faecal coliforms in seawater. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 1992;24(8):411-416. doi:10.1016/0025‐326X(92)90503‐X - 5.
Sinton LW, Davies‐Coley RJ, Bell RG. Inactivation of enterococci and fecal coliforms from sewage and meatworks effluents in seawater chambers. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 1994;60(6):2040-2048. - 6.
Carlucci AF, Pramer D. An evaluation of factors affecting the survival of Escherichia coli in sea water. II. Salinity, pH and nutrients. Applied Microbiology. 1960;8(4):247-250. - 7.
Anderson KL, Whitlock JE, Harwood DJ. Persistence and differential survival of fecal indicator bacteria in subtropical waters and sediments. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 2005;71(6):3041-3048. doi:10.1128/AEM.71.6.3041‐3048.2005 - 8.
Sivri N, Balci M, Durmus T, Seker DZ, Balkis N. Analysis of enteric bacteria distribution in the Gulf of Gemlik (Marmara Sea) by means of GIS. Fresenius Environmental Bulletin. 2012;21(11):3224-3232. - 9.
Anderson IC, Rhodes M, Kator HI. Sublethal stress in Escherichia coli : a function of salinity. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 1979;38(6):1147-1152. - 10.
Kapuscinski RB, Mitchell R. Solar radiation induces sublethal injury in Escherichia coli in seawater. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 1981;41(3):670-674. - 11.
Barcina I, González JM, Iriberri J, Egea L. Survival strategy of Escherichia coli andEnterococcus faecalis in illuminated fresh and marine systems. Journal of Applied Bacteriology. 1990;68(2):189-98. doi:10.1111/j.1365‐2672.1990.tb02565.x - 12.
Grimes DJ, Atwell RW, Brayton PR, Palmer LM. Rollins, DM, Roszak DB, Singleton FL, Tamplin ML, Colwell RR. The fate of enteric pathogenic bacteria in estuarine and marine environments. Microbiological Sciences. 1986;3(11):324-329. - 13.
Singh A, R Yeager, McFeters GA. Assessment of in vivo revival, growth, and pathogenicity of Escherichia coli strains after copper‐ and chlorine‐induced injury. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 1986;52(4):832-837. - 14.
Rozen Y, Belkin S. Survival of enteric bacteria in seawater. FEMS Microbiology Reviews. 2001;25(5):513-529. doi:10.1111/j.1574‐6976.2001.tb00589.x - 15.
Fujioka RS, Narikawa OT. Effect of sunlight on enumeration of indicator bacteria under field conditions. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 1982;44(2):395-401. - 16.
Whittam TS. Clonal dynamics of Escherichia coli in its natural habitat. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek. 1989;55(1):23-32. - 17.
Topp E, Welsh M, Tien YC, Dang A, Lazarovits G, Conn K, Zhu H. Strain‐dependent variability in growth and survival of Escherichia coli in agricultural soil. FEMS Microbiology Ecology. 2003;44(3):303-308. doi:10.1016/S0168‐6496(03)00055‐2 - 18.
Porter KG, Feig YS. The use of DAPI for identifying and counting aquatic microflora. Limnology and Oceanography. 1980;25(5):943-948. doi:10.4319/lo.1980.25.5.0943 - 19.
ISO 16649‐1. Microbiology of food and animal feeding stuff—Horizontal method for the enumeration of β‐glucuronidase‐positive Escherichia coli —Part 1: Colony‐count technique at 44°C using membranes and 5‐bromo‐4‐chloro‐3‐indolyl‐β‐D‐glucuronide. International Organization for Standardization; 2001. 9 p. - 20.
Chandran A, Hatha AAM. Survival of Escherichia coli in a tropical estuary. The South Pacific Journal of Natural Science. 2003;21(1):41-46. doi:10.1071/SP03008 - 21.
Anderson IC, Rhodes MW, Kator HI. Seasonal variation in survival of Escherichia coli exposed in situ in membrane diffusion chambers containing filtered and nonfiltered estuarine water. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 1983;45(6):1877-1883. doi: 0099‐2240/83/061877‐07$02.00/0 - 22.
Gameson ALH. Bacterial mortality. Part 3. In: Investigations of sewage discharges to some British coastal waters. Water Research centre Technical Report TR 201. Medmenham, United Kingdom: Water Research Centre Environment; 1986. pp. 1-74. - 23.
Sinton LW. Biotic and abiotic effects. In: Belkin S, Colwell RR, editors. Oceans and Health: Pathogens in the Marine Environment. New York: Springer; 2005. pp. 69-92. doi:10.1007/b102184 - 24.
Evison LM. Comparative studies on the survival of indicator organisms and pathogens in fresh and sea water. Water Science and Technology. 1988;20(11-12):309-315. - 25.
Fujioka RS, Hashimoto HH, Siwak EB, Reginald HF. Effect of sunlight on survival of indicator bacteria in seawater. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 1981;41(3):690-696. - 26.
Troussellier M, Bonnefont JL, Courties C, et al. Responses of enteric bacteria to environmental stresses in seawater. Oceanologica Acta. 1998;21(6):965-981. doi:10.1016/S0399‐1784(99)80019‐X - 27.
Gauthier MJ, Munro PM, Mohajer S. Influence of salts and sodium chloride on the recovery of Escherichia coli from seawater. Current Microbiology. 1987;15(1):5-10. doi:10.1007/BF01577205 - 28.
Oren A, Vlodavsky L. Survival of Escherichia coli andVibrio harveyi in Dead Sea water. FEMS Microbiology Letters. 1985;31(6):365-371. doi:10.1111/j.1574‐6968.1985.tb01173.x - 29.
Csonka LN, Epstein W. Osmoregulation. In: Neidhardt FC, Curtiss R, Ingraham JL, Lin ECC, Low KB, Magasanik B, Rezniko, WS, Riley M, Schaechter M, Umbarger HE, editors. Escherichia coli andSalmonella : Cellular and Molecular Biology, Vol. 1. Washington, DC: ASM Press; 1996. pp. 1210-1223. - 30.
Gauthier MJ, Flatau GN, Le Rudulier D, Clement RL, Combarro MP. Intracellular accumulation of potassium and glutamate specifically enhances survival of Escherichia coli in seawater. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 1991;57(1):272-276. - 31.
Berthe T, Ratajczak M, Clermont O, Denamur E, Petit F. Evidence for coexistence of distinct Escherichia coli populations invarious aquatic environments and their survival in estuary water. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 2013;79(15):4684-4693. doi:10.1128/AEM.00698‐13 - 32.
Clermont O, Christenson JK, Denamur E, Gordon DM. The Clermont Escherichia coli phylo‐typing method revisited: improvement of specificity and detection of new phylo‐groups. Environmental Microbiology Reports. 2013;5(1):58-65. doi:10.1111/1758‐2229.12019 - 33.
Duriez P, Clermont O, Bonacorsi S, Bingen E, Chaventre A, Elion J, Picard B, Denamur E. Commensal Escherichia coli isolates are phylogenetically distributed among geographically distinct human populations. Microbiology. 2001;147(6):1671-1676. doi:10.1099/ 00221287‐147‐6‐1671 - 34.
Gordon DM, Cowling A. The distribution and genetic structure of Escherichia coli in Australian vertebrates: host and geographic effects. Microbiology. 2003;149(12):3575-3586. doi:10.1099/mic.0.26486‐0 - 35.
Walk ST, Alm EW, Calhoun LM, Mladonicky JM, Whittam TS. Genetic diversity and population structure of Escherichia coli isolated from freshwater beaches. Environmental Microbiology. 2007;9(9):2274-2288. doi:10.1111/j.1462‐2920.2007.01341.x - 36.
Chinivasagam HN, Thomas RJ, Casey K, McGaham E, Gardner EA, Rafiee M, Blackall PJ. Microbiological status of piggery effluent from 13 piggeries in the south east Queensland region of Australia. Journal of Applied Microbiology. 2004;97(5):883-891. doi:10.1111/j.1365‐2672.2004.02382.x - 37.
Gülhan T, Boynukara B, Durmus A, Kiziroglu I, Sancak YC. Enteric bacteria and some pathogenic properties of Enterococcus faecalis ,Enterococcus faecium andEscherichia coli strains isolated from wild ducks and gulls. Fresenius Environmental Bulletin. 2012;21(7a):1961-1966. - 38.
Robinson Hughes M. Cloacal and salt‐gland ion excretion in the seagull, Larus glaucescens, acclimated to increasing concentrations of sea water. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology. 1970;32(2):315-325. doi:10.1016/0010‐406X(70)90944‐8 - 39.
Jagger J. Solar‐UV Actions on Living Cells, 1st ed. New York: Praeger; 1985. 202 p. - 40.
Eisenstark A. Bacterial genes involved in response to near‐ultraviolet radiation. Advances in Genetics. 1989;26:99-147. doi:10.1016/S0065‐2660(08)60224‐2 - 41.
Curtis TP, Mara DD, Silva SA. Influence of pH, oxygen, and humic substances on ability of sunlight to damage fecal coliforms in waste stabilization pond water. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 1992;58(4):1335-1343. - 42.
Davies‐Colley RJ, Bell RG, Donnison AM. Sunlight inactivation of enterococci and fecal coliforms in sewage effluent diluted in seawater. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 1994;60(6):2049-2058. - 43.
Acra A, Raffoul Z, Karahagopian Y. Solar Disinfection of Drinking Water and Oral Rehydration Solutions: Guidelines for Household Application in Developing Countries. Beirut: UNICEF; 1984. 66 p. - 44.
Calkins S, Barcelo JA. Action spectra. In: Calkins J, editor. The Role of Solar Ultraviolet Radiation in Marine Ecosystems. New York and London: Plenum Press; 1982. pp. 143-150. doi:10.1007/978‐1‐4684‐8133‐4 - 45.
Muela A, García‐Bringas I, Barcina I. The effect of simulated solar radiation on Escherichia coli : the relative roles of UV‐B, UV‐A, and photosynthetically active radiation. Microbial Ecology. 2000:39(1):65-71. doi:10.1007/s002489900181 - 46.
Berney M, Weilenmann HU, Ihssen J, Bassin C, Egli T. Specific growth rate determines the sensitivity of Escherichia coli to thermal, UVA, and solar disinfection. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 2006;72(4):2586-2593. doi:10.1128/AEM.72.4. 2586‐2593.2006 - 47.
Jenkins DE, Chaisson SA, Matin A. Starvation‐induced cross protection against osmotic challenge in Escherichia coli . Journal of Bacteriology. 1990;172(5):2779-2781. doi: 10.1128/jb.170.9.3910-3914.1988 - 48.
Jenkins DE, Schultz JE, Matin A. Starvation‐induced cross protection against heat or H2O2 challenge in Escherichia coli . Journal of Bacteriology. 1988;170(9):3910-3914. doi: 10.1128/jb.170.9.3910-3914.1988 - 49.
Kjelleberg S, Hermanosson M. Starvation‐induced effects on bacterial surface charac-teristics. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 1984;48(3):497-503. - 50.
Siegele DA, Kolter S. Life after log. Journal of Bacteriology. 1992;174(2):345-348. doi: 10.1128/jb.174.2.345-348.1992