Open access peer-reviewed chapter

Bacteriological Quality of Borehole and Sachet Water from a Community in Southeastern Nigeria

Written By

Ogueri Nwaiwu, Chiugo Claret Aduba and Oluyemisi Eniola Oni

Submitted: June 4th, 2019Reviewed: February 18th, 2020Published: August 20th, 2020

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.91812

From the Edited Volume

Pathogenic Bacteria

Edited by Sahra Kırmusaoğlu and Sonia Bhonchal Bhardwaj

Chapter metrics overview

637 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics

Abstract

Water from boreholes and packaged commercial sachet water from different areas in a community in southern Nigeria was analyzed with membrane filtration for a snapshot of heterotrophic count and coliforms. Two boreholes out of the 20 analyzed had counts of over 500 Cfu/mL and 7 boreholes indicated the presence of coliforms. Sixteen samples out of 20 sachet water brands analyzed showed a regulatory product registration code, whereas 4 samples had no number or code indicating that they were not registered. The heterotrophic count of all sachet water was well within the limit for all samples analyzed, and coliform was detected in only two samples. The overall quality of borehole water in the community studied was rated D (65%), whereas the sachet water was rated C (90%) according to the World Health Organization (WHO) surveillance guidelines. Improvements in water quality structure in the community studied are required to help achieve WHO sustainable development goals on water sanitation. The etiology, virulence properties, epidemiology, and pathogenicity of bacteria associated with borehole and sachet water are also discussed.

Keywords

  • bacteria
  • borehole
  • sachet water
  • coliforms
  • heterotrophic count

1. Introduction

Up to 2.1 billion people worldwide lack access to safe, readily available water at home according to a WHO/UNICEF report [1]. The report emphasized that majority of the people without good quality water are from developing countries and the lives of millions of children are at risk every day, with many dying from preventable diseases caused by poor water supply. The importance of good quality water is the reason why clean water and sanitation have been included as goal number 6 out of the 17 proposed sustainable development goals (SDGs) of the United Nations [2]. The proposal is that the SDGs will be the blueprint to achieving a better and more sustainable future for humanity by 2030.

In Nigeria, the public water supply is in a state of comatose in most towns and villages and dry taps without any hope of water running through the taps soon affect millions of homes. This has forced individuals and institutions to resort to self-help by using water from boreholes as the only source of water supply for drinking and general use. Use of borehole is a simple way of obtaining potable water from the aquifer below the ground, after which the water can be pumped into storage tanks before distribution.

Many people that went into borehole drilling business, which reduced the price of new boreholes, aided the proliferation of boreholes in Nigeria, and many citizens were ready to pay more money in rent for houses, which had boreholes. Furthermore, the dependence on groundwater, which is believed to be purified, is on the increase due to the increasing contamination of the surface water [3]. It is known that properly designed and constructed borehole both ensures the success of the borehole as an adequate supply of water and minimizes the risk of local pollution affecting the source [4]. If a borehole facility is not properly managed, contamination may occur in the process through the accumulation of physical, chemical, and biological agents in the pipelines and storage tanks of a distribution system or water packaging company. One direct use of boreholes is in the production and packaging of drinking water in sachets made from low-density polyethylene sheets. These products are popularly known as “pure water” in Nigeria. From the early 1990s, the production of sachet water increased exponentially and provided jobs for producers and sellers of the product. There is hardly any community in Nigeria without a sachet water facility. It is possibly the most widely consumed commercial liquid in Nigeria, and no sophistication is required for production. The quest for a cheap, readily available, and inexpensive source of potable water contributed to the emergence of sachet water [5], and it is far better and safer than the hand-filled, hand-tied packaged water in polyethylene bag [6] sold in Nigeria in the past. In developing countries, production and consumption of sachet water are rapidly on the rise [7], and many unregulated producers exist.

Packaged drinking water like the sachet water could be water from any potable source such as tap, well, and rain, which may be subjected to further treatments like decantation, filtration, demineralization, remineralization, and other methods to meet established drinking standards [8, 9]. Packaged water is susceptible to microbial and chemical contamination regardless of their source [10]. Researchers have previously performed microbial analysis of sachet water in Nigeria using different laboratory techniques and found different bacteria and fungi. Occurrence of bacteria could lead to different disease conditions such as gastroenteritis, typhoid fever, cholera, bacillary dysentery, and hepatitis [11]. It has been reported [12] that waterborne diseases account for 80% of illnesses and diseases in developing countries, which leads to the death of several children every 8 seconds. In Nigeria, like most developing countries, various factors predispose packaged sachet water to contamination, and these include poor sanitation and source of raw material for food or water production [13]. Long storage of sachet under unfavorable environmental conditions and lack of good manufacturing practices (GMP) in general also contribute to contamination.

It has been found that the microbiome dynamically changes during different stages of water treatment distribution and the main important group in the past and present are fecal-associated bacterial pathogens like Escherichia coli[14]. However, opportunistic bacteria like Legionellaand process-related bacteria, which form biofilms, are also a cause for concern [15, 16]. A review [17] elucidated that drinking water comprises a complex microbiota that is influenced by disinfection and that members of the phylum Proteobacteriarepresent the most frequent bacteria in drinking water. It was also pointed out that their ubiquity has serious implications for human health and that the first step to address the persistent nature of bacteria in water would be to identify and characterize ubiquitous bacteria. The manifestation of bacterial contamination in drinking water can become known when outbreaks occur, and surveillance data provides insights on the microbial etiology of diseases and process failures that facilitated the outbreak [18]. Sometimes it can also be detected from laboratory results especially when water treatment facility is contaminated by bacterial biofilms [19, 20].

In Nigeria, regulatory oversight is inadequate due to limited resources. Surveillance of bacteria in drinking water from boreholes and sachet water is necessary for the benefit of public health; hence, periodic surveys can help establish trends and identify where water quality of boreholes and sachet water is deficient. This chapter reports a survey, explores reports of bacteria associated with water from borehole and sachet water in Nigeria, and compares data found with WHO water standards. The organisms associated with boreholes and sachet water are discussed.

Advertisement

2. Methods

Water samples from boreholes were collected on different days using Whirl-Pak sampling bags (Nasco, Wisconsin, USA) and analyzed within 2 hours after collection. Twenty private boreholes and 20 different brands of commercial sachet water sold in four areas of a community were analyzed on different days. Sachet water was purchased (five each) from the different areas and were inspected for the inscription of an approved product registration code from the National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control (NAFDAC), the Nigerian national regulatory body. It was ensured that the same brand was not purchased twice from one area. The human population of the community (all 4 areas) was estimated to be over 5000 but less than 100,000.

Heterotrophic plate and total coliform count of bacteria were carried out using standard membrane filtration performed previously [21]. A slight modification of the method was introduced. Instead of using factory-made ready to use nutrient media sets, plate count agar (Oxoid, United Kingdom, CM0325) and violet red bile lactose agar (Oxoid, CM0107) for coliforms were prepared and used according to manufacturer’s instructions. Briefly, the filtration process involved placing of 100 ml of water sample in a sterile multibranched stainless steel manifold and filter holder system. A 0.45 μm membrane filter was fitted into the filter system after which water was drawn through to retain bacteria on the membrane. The membrane filter was placed on the media prepared and then incubated at 32°C over 48 h for membrane filters placed on plate count agar, whereas incubation at 30°C for 48 h was used for filters grown on violet red bile lactose agar. The heterotrophic count was noted, and estimated coliform results obtained for boreholes and sachet water were compared to WHO quality guidelines for drinking water [22].

Advertisement

3. Results

3.1 Heterotrophic and total coliform count of borehole samples

This survey was carried out to have an overview of the bacterial load in water quality of some boreholes in the community surveyed. The borehole owners were apprehensive and thought they were being investigated for possible closure. To allow sample collection, it was agreed that the name of borehole owners and their location should remain anonymous when the findings were published. Results showed that borehole samples from area “C2” had the highest heterotrophic aerobic count. Two boreholes had counts of over 500 Cfu/mL, which is above the recommended heterotrophic limit [21]. All the other samples were below 500 Cfu/mL. Seven boreholes indicated the presence of coliforms because purple-pink colonies, which were 1–2 mm in diameter surrounded by a purple zone, were formed on the plates after incubation. Samples C2a, C2b, C2c, C2d, and C2e had coliform count of 17, 15, 9, 6, and 5 Cfu/mL, respectively, whereas samples C3b and C4b had coliform count of 4 and 2 Cfu/mL. The rest of the samples had no coliform on the plate used after incubation. A definitive trend was that samples with the highest heterotrophic count had the most coliform count (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Heterotrophic plate count of borehole water sourced from different areas of the community studied (C1–C4). The letters a to e represent different samples.

3.2 Heterotrophic and total coliform count of sachet water samples

Periodic analysis of sachet water is important to public health because millions of people in Nigeria consume it. An ideal situation would be to analyze every borehole water from which sachet water is produced to establish water treatment effectiveness. Enquiries made to sachet water producers for access to their source of water for production were not successful. To refuse access some companies gave information and advice that they do not have a borehole and their water for production is sourced from the supply by water tankers. Hence, commercial samples of sachet water were purchased from different locations with unknown source of initial water for production of sachet water on sale. Sixteen samples out of the 20 analyzed showed a NAFDAC product registration code, whereas 4 samples had no number or code indicating that they were not registered. The heterotrophic count was well within the limit for all samples analyzed, and coliform was detected in only two samples. Sample SC1c and SC3c had a coliform count of 2 Cfu/mL each (Figure 2).

Figure 2.

Heterotrophic plate count of sachet water (S) sourced from different areas of the community studied (C1–C4). Letters a to e represent different samples.

3.3 Comparisons with WHO guidelines

The WHO standards and guidelines are usually used to monitor water quality. The WHO categorizes drinking water systems based on population size and quality rating to prioritize actions. A quality score from A to D is awarded (quality decreases A to D) based on the proportion (%) of samples negative for E. coli. However, the samples under study were assessed for total coliforms and not E.coli; the scoring was carried out with the presumption that samples with high coliform count may contain E. coli. Total coliforms serve as a parameter to provide basic information on water quality [23]. On this basis, the overall quality of borehole water in the community studied (all areas combined) was rated D (proportion of samples negative for coliform =13; 65%), whereas the sachet water was rated C (18 = 90%).

Advertisement

4. Discussion

4.1 Bacteria associated with boreholes in Nigeria

Pathogenic bacteria often occur in borehole water systems especially in developing nations [24, 25, 26]. Coliforms found in this study and other Gram-negative bacteria have been isolated from boreholes in different parts of Nigeria by many investigators [27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34]. The organisms mentioned in these studies include Enterobacter aerogenes, Escherichia coli, Klebsiella aerogenes, Klebsiellasp., Klebsiella pneumoniae, Klebsiella variicola, Proteussp., and Proteus vulgaris. Other bacteria isolated are Providencia sneebia, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Salmonella paratyphi, Salmonellasp., Salmonella typhi, Staphylococcus aureus, and Vibrio cholera.

The prevalence of the aforementioned species and genera may be due to the classical microbiological methods used for isolation. In most cases, MacConkey media was used for E.coliand coliform identification with no molecular studies that included 16S or whole-genome sequencing essential for establishing the actual prevalent bacteria species and strains in boreholes. An opportunity exists for regular molecular characterization of bacteria found in boreholes to help differentiate between harmless coliforms, fecal coliforms, and the deadly E. colistrain O157: H7. Borehole operators are required to deliver safe and reliable drinking water to their customers. If a community consistently consumes contaminated water, they may become unwell. Hence, regular monitoring and assessment of borehole water sources help maintain quality and provide data on groundwater management [35, 36, 37, 38].

4.1.1 Bacteria contamination of groundwater

In Africa, many people rely on water from a borehole, but the purity of the drinking water from this source remains questionable [39, 40]. The high heterotrophic count found in Area “2” of the community studied suggests that the groundwater of that area may be contaminated. The corresponding increased coliform count observed is consistent with the findings of Amanidaz et al. [41], which showed that when the concentration of coliforms and fecal Streptococcibacteria increased in a water network system, there was also an increased concentration of heterotrophic bacteria. These contrasts with the work of others [42] where it was shown that high heterotrophic count inhibits coliform proliferation. Despite increased heterotrophic count and coliforms in the study of Amanidaz et al. [41], it was concluded that no correlation exists, and increased numbers could be due to variability in nutrient composition [43]. Another factor could be biofilm formation because it has been shown that attached bacteria in biofilms of a water system are more metabolically active than the ones that are free-living [44]. Groundwater is susceptible to contamination by both organic and inorganic contaminants [45, 46, 47, 48]. Contamination could happen through natural processes, such as geological weathering and dissolution of numerous minerals beneath the earth’s surface, which results in low natural concentrations of contaminants in groundwater [49]. Anthropogenic sources, such as seepages from agricultural wastewaters, domestic sewages, mining activities, and industrial effluents, can also affect the quality of groundwater in many parts of the world [50, 51, 52]. Other reports showed that borehole contamination may occur through domestic wastewater and livestock manure [53] industrialization and urbanization [54] and leakages from septic tanks [55] or pit latrines [56]. Seasonal environmental conditions may also contribute to increased bacteria count from borehole water because other investigators [57, 58] have demonstrated that higher bacterial count in borehole water occurs during the rainy season. This has been attributed to flooding which may allow floodwater to get into borehole systems that are not properly constructed.

4.2 Cases of sachet water contamination in Nigeria

Postproduction improper handling [59] and compromising safety and quality for profit during production [60] are factors that can affect sachet water contamination in Nigeria. Sachet water producers are expected to be food safety conscious in order not to jeopardize the health of the public. A large number of sachet water-producing companies in Nigeria are not registered and do not practice good manufacturing practices or follow international quality standards of water treatment [61] despite the efforts of NAFDAC to improve standards. Up to 25% of samples analyzed in this study had no regulation or expiration date code as recommended previously [62]. However, the fact that 75% of sachet water analyzed had date codes is a remarkable improvement from what was the norm (0%) when sachet water production started in the country. Unlike a previous study with larger sample size [11], which reported isolation of bacterial species in 54 out of 720 (7.5%) from 6 different brands of sachet water in northern Nigeria, all the samples in this study (100%) showed heterotrophic growth that were within permissible limits (<500 Cfu/mL).

Sachet water analysis from other parts of Nigeria has shown different levels of contamination. In this study, 10% (2 out of 20) of samples contained coliforms. In other studies carried out on samples sourced from Aba in the southeast, an analysis of 20 sachet water samples showed that 32% of the samples reportedly tested positive for Staphylococcusspp., 23% for Pseudomonas, 20% for Klebsiellaspp., 15% for Proteus, and 10% for Enterobacter[59]. Another study in the same region reported a contamination in 8 out of the 10 sachet water samples analyzed, isolated microorganisms included E. coli, Klebsiellaspp., Pseudomonasspp., Bacillusspp., Proteusspp., and Staphylococcusspp. [5]. Also 66% and 73% prevalence of pathogens have been reported [63] in this region after two batches of 30 sachet water samples were analyzed. In Oyo, which is situated in the southwest of Nigeria, E. coli(13.3%), Pseudomonas aeruginosa(39.9%), and Enterobacter aerogenes(53.3%) were isolated from commercially sold sachet water [64]. Another report in this region [26] highlighted that all brands of sachet water (100%) analyzed had the presence of coliforms.

4.3 Compliance with world standards

A recent SDGs progress report [3] shows that between 2000 and 2017, the proportion of the global population using safely managed drinking water increased from 61 to 71%. The report highlighted that despite the increase, water stress affects people on every continent, requiring immediate and accelerated collective action to provide billions of people with safely managed drinking water. The quality score for the boreholes and sachet water from the community studied showed that the water needs improvement to achieve the desired “A” rating. In this study, the borehole water quality in Area “2” is a source of concern, and the owners in that area were advised to boil and filter the water before drinking. It is common knowledge in Nigeria that some boreholes are not deep enough to produce clean water from the aquifer; hence, such boreholes are used for other domestic purposes but not for cooking food or drinking. Owners of such boreholes normally boil and filter the water for drinking.

Water quality specifications may depend on the particular use, but the presence of coliforms in drinking water indicates that disease-causing organisms could be in the water system and may pose an immediate health risk to the water consumers. When coliforms and other bacteria are found, it is always recommended [65] that an investigation should be carried out to establish the sources of contamination. This confirmation will enable risk assessment and identification of solutions that will eliminate or reduce the risk of waterborne disease within a large population [66].

4.4 Etiology, virulence, epidemiology, and pathogenicity of bacteria associated with borehole and sachet water

From the studies reviewed, the organisms found in borehole water are well-known food- and waterborne bacteria that are constantly monitored by regulatory authorities in many parts of the world. Outbreaks can occur in a community and cause fatalities and economic losses. Hence, a constant review of the growth conditions that enable the bacteria to proliferate, the features that enable survival in different environments, infection mode, and prevalence pattern of these bacteria is important to reduce outbreaks.

4.4.1 Staphylococcus

The bacterium Staphylococcus aureusfrom the genus Staphylococcusis known for methicillin resistance of some strains. The bacterium is a major environmental contaminant of food and water, and the human skin and nose are known to be major sources of the organism. Nasal colonization [67, 68] and atopic dermatitis of the skin [69, 70] are considered risk factors. Environmental contamination may be the source of contamination in borehole water analyzed in this study, whereas humans or personnel involved in sachet water production are likely to be contributors to contamination. In Nigeria, sachet water producers are known to lack resources; hence, it is possible that respiratory protective equipment like nose masks are not worn during production in some facilities. Since it is possible to distinguish community-associated MRSA from healthcare-associated MRSA based on genetic, epidemiologic, or microbiological profiles [71], it would be beneficial to screen the strains found in this study to determine if they are methicillin resistant and community-related.

The pathogenicity, epidemiology, and virulence factors of Staphylococcushave been comprehensively reviewed [72]. It was highlighted that colonization is aided by biofilm formation that is housed in extracellular polymeric substance (EPS) found in many bacteria and that virulence factors are expressed with accessory gene regulator (agr) system in response to cell density [73]. To avoid formation of biofilms and EPS in the sachet water-producing environment, adequate personnel hygiene and good manufacturing practices that meet food safety standards must be implemented.

4.4.2 Pseudomonas

The genus Pseudomonasespecially P. aeruginosais known globally as endemic [74] and an opportunistic pathogen that causes several infections [75]. They are often isolated in clinics [76], and other sources may include residential, recreational, or surface water [77]. The colonies are usually heavily mucoid on solid media. It has been reported that mechanisms of antimicrobial resistance in Pseudomonasstrains and most bacteria include multidrug efflux pumps and downregulation of outer membrane porins, whereas virulence may include secretion of toxins and the ability to form biofilms [78, 79]. A natural property of Pseudomonasis the possession of multiple mechanisms for different forms of antibiotic resistance [80], and this may have facilitated its occurrence in boreholes and sachet water.

4.4.3 Klebsiella

Klebsiellacauses many infections, which includes urinary tract infections, pneumonia, bacteremia, and liver abscesses [81]. The genus is associated with water, and this may be why it has been isolated in both borehole and sachet water. The organism is found in drinking water [82], rivers [83], and sewage water [84], which may encourage environmental spread. It has been reported that the organism has a variety of virulence and immune evasive factors, which contribute to uptake of genes associated with antimicrobial resistance and pathogenicity [85]. A report [86] suggested that the species K. pneumoniaeacquired antimicrobial resistance genes independently and their population is highly diverse. An analysis of strains from human and animal isolates spanning four continents has shown convergence of virulence and resistance genes, which may lead to untreatable invasive K. pneumoniaeinfections [87].

4.4.4 Escherichia

The most studied species of the Escherichiagenus is E. coli, a coliform bacteria used to verify hygiene status in food and water. Usually, the presence of various strains of pathogenic or nonpathogenic E. coliin food or water samples indicates fecal contamination [88]. It has been reported that [89] a comparative analysis show that avian and human E. coliisolates contain similar sets of genes encoding virulence factors and that they belong to the same phylogenetic groups, which may indicate the zoonotic origin of extraintestinal pathogenic E. coli.

A study of the prevalence of E. colistrain O157:H7 in England and Scotland showed that it has a seasonal dependency, with greater fecal shedding of the organism in the warmer months together with increased reporting of E. coliO157:H7 infection among hospitalized patients [90]. This finding is very worrying because it suggests that there could be high prevalence when applied to Nigeria because the country has a warm climate all year round. However, good manufacturing practices irrespective of the climate appear to be the key factor in producing packaged water free of coliforms. It has been shown that levels of coliform bacteria and E. colidetected in sachet water samples in Ghana, a country with similar climate to Nigeria, were statistically and significantly lower than levels detected from several water sources including public taps [91].

4.4.5 Enterobacter

The genus Enterobacterconsists of coliforms that are known to be of non-fecal origin. It is believed [92] that many Enterobacterspecies, which could act as pathogens, are widely encountered in nature but are most frequently isolated in human clinical specimens possibly because phenotypic identification of all species belonging to this taxon is usually difficult and not always reliable. Therefore, the identification of this genus in borehole and sachet water may need a revisit since molecular methods were not used. The organism is known as a ubiquitous and persistent Gram-negative bacterium in drinking water [17], but there are few studies of its occurrence or prevalence in borehole and sachet water or other water sources in Nigeria.

To understand the carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterspp. and the development of molecular diagnostics, Chavda et al. [93] used genomic analysis of 447 sequenced strains to establish diverse mechanisms underlying the molecular evolutionary trajectory of drug-resistant Enterobacterspp. Their findings showed the acquisition of an antibiotic resistance plasmid, followed by clonal spread and horizontal transfer of blaKPC-harboring plasmids between different phylogenomic groups. The report also showed repeated transposition of the blaKPCgene among different plasmid backbones.

4.4.6 Proteus

Proteusspecies are Gram-negative opportunistic rod-shaped bacteria known for its swarming motility and contamination of agar plates. Furthermore, on agar plates, the bacteria undergoes a morphological conversion to a filamentous swarmer cell expressing hundreds of flagella, and during infection, histological damage is caused by cytotoxins including hemolysin and a variety of proteases [94]. The organism is reported to have negative and positive advantages. According to Drzewiecka [95], Proteusspecies may be indicators of fecal pollution, which may cause food poisoning when the contaminated water or seafood is consumed, and it could be used for bioremediation activity due to its tolerance and ability to utilize polluting compounds as sources of energy.

Virulence factors may include fimbriae, flagella, outer membrane proteins, lipopolysaccharide, capsule antigen, urease, immunoglobulin A, proteases, hemolysins, and amino acid deaminases [96]. The ability to swarm and survive is facilitated by the upregulation of FlhD(2)C(2) transcription activator, which activates the flagellar regulon [97]. The prevalence of Proteusspp. in borehole or sachet water may be aided by its ability to swarm and colonize the production environment.

4.4.7 Vibrio

In Nigeria, the most reported species among the Vibriospecies that cause water-related infection is Vibrio cholerae. The organism causes cholera, which is an infection that is characterized by watery stooling. The disease has killed hundreds of people in Nigeria in the last decade. According to Faruque et al. [98], a lysogenic bacteriophage designated CTXΦ encodes the Cholera toxin (CT), which is strongly influenced by environmental conditions [99]. The organism is responsible for the profuse diarrhea, and molecular epidemiological surveillance has revealed clonal diversity among toxigenic V. choleraestrains with continuous emergence of new epidemic clones. It has not been established if the strains found in boreholes and sachet water are the V. choleraeO1 or O139 strains that cause cholera [100]. There is a possibility that they could be non-O1 or non-O139 strains that are common in the environment.

In 2017, the WHO launched a global strategy on cholera control with a target to reduce cholera deaths worldwide by 90% [101]. The strategy is to use safe oral cholera vaccines in conjunction with improvements in water and sanitation to control cholera outbreaks and for prevention in areas known to be high risk for cholera. Nigeria can be classified as a high-risk area, and the occurrence of Vibriospecies in borehole or sachet water suggests that they could transmit cholera. Outbreaks occur regularly in Nigeria, and it is always difficult to bring it under control. An outbreak in 2018 was characterized by four epidemiological waves and led to 836 deaths out of 43,996 cases [102], whereas that of 2010 killed a total of 1716 out of 41, 787 cases [103]. In both cases, the case fatality rate was over 1% recommended by WHO.

4.4.8 Bacillus

Bacillus cereusis a food safety concern among several species of Bacillus. It is naturally widely distributed in nature, and it is known as a Gram-positive rod bacterium that is responsible for food poisoning [104]. It can proliferate because of unhygienic practices [105] and can attach to drinking water infrastructure [106]. This suggests that the ubiquity of the organism, poor hygiene, and attachment to equipment may be why Bacillushas been repeatedly isolated from boreholes and sachet water by previous investigators.

Bacillusgrowth is sometimes considered an insignificant contaminant. Some strains like B. subtilisis used for probiotics [107], whereas a strain like B. cereuswhich secrets toxins like hemolysins, phospholipases, an emesis-inducing toxin, and proteases [108] is not used due to obvious reasons. Toxin production in B. cereusrequires the transcription factor PlcR, which controls expression of virulence factors [109]. Virulence-associated gene profiles have been used to evaluate the genetic backgrounds and relationships of food poisoning cases among other isolates from the environment, and it was concluded that both molecular and epidemiological surveillance studies could be used effectively to estimate virulence [110].

4.4.9 Salmonella

The species Salmonella typhiand Salmonella paratyphicause typhoid fever and remain a major public health concern in Asia and Africa [111] due to antimicrobial resistance. For developed countries, it is believed that some non-typhoidal strains are zoonotic in origin and acquire their resistance in the food animal host before onward transmission to humans through the food chain [112]. It has been reported that the overall global burden of Salmonellainfections is high and this may be the reason why in 2017, the WHO listed fluoroquinolone-resistant Salmonellaspp. as priority pathogens for which new antibiotics were urgently needed [113].

The bacterium can survive in aquatic environments by a number of mechanisms, including entry into the viable but non-culturable state or residence within free-living protozoa [114]. Survival in water may have contributed to the isolation from borehole and sachet water in studies by others. It is not certain if the isolates encountered in this study cause typhoid fever or are the non-typhoid causing strains. Hence, additional studies are required to establish the prevalent type of Salmonellain water-producing facilities in Nigeria. A recent report found that typhoid fever still poses a serious health challenge in Nigeria and is a major health security issue [115]. It was recommended that a combined approach that includes the use of typhoid vaccines, improvements in sanitation, and safe water supply is essential.

Advertisement

5. Conclusions

The overall bacteria quality of the borehole and sachet water in the community studied needs improvement. An improvement can be achieved by focusing on areas with coliform contamination. Boreholes should be sited where pollutants will not easily contaminate them. Regular water testing should be carried out to ensure the attainment of WHO guidelines always. Where deviations are found, corrective actions should be undertaken. The literature on bacteria from boreholes and sachet water in Nigeria shows that not much molecular characterization has been carried out; hence an opportunity exists for more investigations. Regulatory oversight for sachet water production and the use of boreholes by large community populations requires improvement. It is recommended that universities should carry out periodic surveillance of boreholes and sachet water sold near them to support the SDG targets of the WHO.

Advertisement

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF). Water, sanitation and hygiene [Internet]. Available from:https://www.unicef.org/wash/[Accessed: 03 November 2019]
  2. 2.United Nations. About the sustainable development goals [Internet]. Available from:https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/[Accessed: 03 November 2019]
  3. 3.Agwu A, Avoaja AG, Kalu AU. The assessment of drinking water sources in aba metropolis, Abia state, Nigeria. Resources and Environment. 2013;3(4):72-76
  4. 4.Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all [Internet]. Available from:https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2019/goal-06/[Accessed: 02 November 2019]
  5. 5.Anyamene NC, Ojiagu DK. Bacteriological analysis of sachet water sold in Awka Metropolis, Nigeria. International Journal of Agriculture and Biosciences. 2014;3(3):120-122
  6. 6.Manjaya D, Tilley E, Marks SJ. Informally vended sachet water: Handling practices and microbial water quality. Water. 2019;11(4):800. DOI: 10.3390/w11040800
  7. 7.Gangil R, Tripachi R, Patyal A, Dutta P, Mathur KN. Bacteriological evaluation of packaged bottled water sold at Jaipur city and its public health significance. Veterinary World. 2013;6:27-30
  8. 8.Aroh KN, Eze EM, Ukaji D, Wachuku CK, Gobo AE, Abbe SD, et al. Health and environmental components of sachet water consumption and trade in Aba and Port Harcourt, Nigeria. Journal of Chemical Engineering and Material Science. 2013;4:13-22
  9. 9.Isikwue MO, Chikezie A. Quality assessment of various sachet water brands marketed in Bauchi metropolis of Nigeria. International Journal of Advances in Engineering and Technology. 2014;6(6):2489-2495
  10. 10.Sudhakar MR, Mnatha P. Water quality in sustainable water management. Current Science. 2004;87:942-947
  11. 11.Thliza LA, Khan AU, Dangora DB, Yahaya A. Study of some bacterial load of some brands of sachet water sold in Ahmadu Bello University (Main campus), Zaria, Nigeria. International Journal of Current Science. 2015;14:91-97
  12. 12.Hughes JM, Koplan JP. Saving lives through global safe water. Journal of Infectious Diseases. 2011;10:1636-1637
  13. 13.Ashbolt NJ. Microbial contamination of drinking water and disease outcomes in developing regions. Toxicology. 2004;198:229-238
  14. 14.Proctor CR, Hammes F. Drinking water microbiology--from measurement to management. Current Opinion in Biotechnology. 2015;33:87-94. DOI: 10.1016/j.copbio.2014.12.014
  15. 15.Berry D, Xi C, Raskin L. Microbial ecology of drinking water distribution systems. Current Opinion in Biotechnology. 2006;17:297-302
  16. 16.Benner J, Helbling DE, Kohler HP, Wittebol J, Kaiser E, Prasse C, et al. Is biological treatment a viable alternative for micropollutant removal in drinking water treatment processes? Water Research. 2013;47(16):5955-5976
  17. 17.Vaz-Moreira I, Nunes OC, Manaia CM. Ubiquitous and persistent proteobacteria and other gram-negative bacteria in drinking water. Science of the Total Environment. 2017;586:1141-1149. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.02.104
  18. 18.Hunter PR, Anderson Y, Von Bonsdorff CH, Chalmers RM, Cifuentes E, Deere D, et al. Surveillance and investigation of contamination incidents and water borne outbreaks. In: Dufour A, Snozzi M, Koster W, Bartram J, Ronchi E, Fewtrell L, editors. Microbial Safety of Drinking Water: Improving Approaches and Methods. Cornwall: IWA; 2003. pp. 205-236
  19. 19.Nwaiwu O, Nwachukwu MI. Detection and molecular identification of persistent water vessel colonizing bacteria in a table water factory in Nigeria. British Microbiology Research Journal. 2016;13(5):1-12
  20. 20.Nwaiwu O. Data on evolutionary relationships ofAeromonas hydrophilaandSerratia proteamaculansthat attach to water tanks. Data in Brief. 2018;16:10-14. DOI: 10.1016/j.dib.2017.10.073
  21. 21.Nwaiwu O, Ibekwe VI. Prevalence and risk of heterotrophic bacteria in a carbonated soft drink factory. African Journal of Microbiology Research. 2017;11(6):245-253
  22. 22.Guidelines for drinking-water quality: Fourth edition incorporating the first Addendum, Surveillance [Internet]. 2017. World Health Organization, pp. 89-91. Available from:https://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/publications/drinking-water-quality-guidelines-4-including-1st-addendum/en/[Accessed: 01 October 2019]
  23. 23.Shibata T, Solo-Gabriele HM, Fleming LE, Elmir S. Monitoring marine recreational water quality using multiple microbial indicators in an urban tropical environment. Water Research. 2004;38(13):3119-3131. DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2004.04.004
  24. 24.Oludairo O, Aiyedun J. Contamination of commercially packaged sachet water and the public health implications: An overview. Bangladesh Journal of Veterinary Medicine. 2016;13(2):73-81
  25. 25.Aroh KN, Eze EM, Ukaji D, Wachukwu CK, Gobo AE, Abbe SD, et al. Health and environmental components of sachet water consumption and trade in aba and Port Harcourt, Nigeria. Journal of Chemical Engineering and Materials Science. 2013;4(2):13-22
  26. 26.Oyedeji O, Olutiola PO, Moninuola MA. Microbiological quality of packaged drinking water brands marketed in Ibadan metropolis and Ile-Ife city in South Western Nigeria. African Journal of Microbiology Research. 2010;4(1):096-102
  27. 27.Onuorah S, Nwoke J, Odibo F. Bacteriological assessment of the public hand-pump borehole water in Onueke, Ezza south local government area, Ebonyi state, Nigeria. International Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology. 2018;2(2):39-48
  28. 28.Abdullahi M, Saidu BT, Salihu BA, Mohammed SA. Bacteriological and physicochemical properties of borehole water in Niger state polytechnic, Zungeru Campus. Indian Journal of Science Research. 2013;4(1):1-6
  29. 29.Akinola OT, Ogunbode TO, Akintunde EO. Borehole water quality characteristics and its potability in Iwo, Osun state Nigeria. Journal of Scientific Research and Reports. 2018;18(1):1-8
  30. 30.Ngele SO, Itumoh EJ, Onwa NC, Alobu F. Quality assessment of selected ground water samples in Amike-Aba, Abakaliki, Ebonyi State, Nigeria. Canadian Journal of Pure & Applied Science. 2014;8(1):2801-2805
  31. 31.Josiah JS, Nwangwu CO, Omage K, Akpanyung OE, Amaka DD. Physicochemical and microbiological properties of water samples used for domestic purposes in Okada Town, Edo State, Nigeria. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences. 2014;3(6):886-894
  32. 32.Ibe SN, Okpalenye JI. Bacteriological analysis of borehole water in Uli, Nigeria. African Journal of Applied Zoology and Environmental Biology. 2005;7:116-119
  33. 33.Uhuo CA, Uneke BI, Okereke CN, Nwele DE, Ogbanshi ME. The bacteriological survey of borehole waters in Peri-Urban areas of Abakaliki, Ebonyi State, Nigeria. International Journal of Bacteriology Research. 2014;2(2):28-31
  34. 34.Ukpong EC, Okon BB. Comparative analysis of public and private borehole water supply sources in Uruan local government area of AkwaIbom state, Nigeria. International Journal of Applied Science and Technology. 2013;3(1):76-88
  35. 35.Howard G, Bartram J, Pedley S, Schmoll O, Choros I, Berger P. Groundwater and public health. In: Schmoll O, Howard G, Chilton J, Chorus I, editors. Protecting Groundwater for Health: Managing the Quality of Drinking Water Sources. London: IWA Publishing; 2006. p. 17
  36. 36.Mogheir Y, Singh VP. Application of information theory to groundwater quality monitoring networks. Water Resources Management. 2002;16(1):37-49
  37. 37.Sundaram B, Feitz A, Caritat PD, Plazinska A, Brodie R, Coram J, et al. Groundwater sampling and analysis- A field guide, Geoscience Australia. Record: 2009/27. p. 95. Canberra [Internet]. Available from:http://www.cffet.net/env/uploads/gsa/BOOK-Groundwater-sampling-%26-analysis-A-field-guide.pdf[Accessed: 04 November 2019]
  38. 38.Suthar S, Chhimpa V, Singh S. Bacterial contamination in drinking water: A case study in rural areas of northern Rajasthan, India. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. 2009;159:43 [Internet]. Available from:http://doi.org10.1007/s10661-008-0611-0[Accessed: 05 November 2019]
  39. 39.Olalekan A, Abubakar B, Abdul-Mumini K. Physico-chemical characteristics of borehole water quality in Gassol, Taraba, State, Nigeria. African Journal of Environmental Science and Technology. 2015;9(2):143-154
  40. 40.Ncube EJ, Schutte CF. The occurrence of fluoride in south African groundwater: A water quality and health problem. Water SA. 2005;31(1):35-40
  41. 41.Amanidaz N, Zafarzadeh A, Mahvi AH. The interaction between heterotrophic bacteria and coliform, fecal coliform, Fecal streptococci bacteria in the water supply networks. Iranian Journal of Public Health. 2015;44(12):1685-1692
  42. 42.Clark JA. The influence of increasing numbers of nonindicator organisms upon the detection of indicator organisms by the membrane filter and presence-absence tests. Canadian Journal of Microbiology. 1980;26:827-832
  43. 43.LeChevallier MW, Schulz W, Lee RG. Bacterial nutrients in drinking water. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 1991;57:857-862
  44. 44.Møller S, Kristensen CS, Poulsen L, Carstensen JM, Molin S. Bacterial growth on surfaces: Automated image analysis for quantification of growth rate-related parameters. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 1995;61:741-748
  45. 45.Sun L, Peng W. Heavy metals in shallow groundwater of the urban area in Suzhou, northern Anhui Province, China. Water Practice and Technology. 2014;9(2):197-205
  46. 46.Abduljameel A, Sirajudeen J, Abdulvahith R. Studies on heavy metal pollution of groundwater sources between Tamilnadu and Pondicherry, India. Advances in Applied Science Research. 2012;3(1):424-429
  47. 47.Leung CM, Jiao JJ. Heavy metal and trace element distributions in groundwater in natural slopes and highly urbanized spaces in mid-levels areas, Hong Kong. Water Research. 2006;40(4):753-767
  48. 48.Nouri J, Mahvi AH, Babaei AA, Jahed GR, Ahmadpour E. Investigation of heavy metals in groundwater. Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences. 2006;9(3):377-384
  49. 49.Rivett M, Drewes J, Barett M, Chilton J, Appleyard S, Dieter HH, et al. Chemicals: Health relevance, transport and attenuation. In: Schmoll O, Howard G, Chilton J, Chorus I, editors. Protecting Groundwater for Health: Managing the Quality of Drinking Water Sources. London: IWA Publishing; 2006. p. 123
  50. 50.Stamatis G, Voudouris K, Karefilakis F. Groundwater pollution by heavy metals in historical mining area of Kavrio, Attical, Greece. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution. 2001;128(2):61-83
  51. 51.Mahiknecht J, Steinich B, Navarro de Leon I. Groundwater chemistry and mass transfers in the independent aquifer, Central Mexico by using multivariate statistics and mass-balance models. Environmental Geology. 2004;48(6):781-795
  52. 52.Rajasekaran R, Abinaya M. Heavy metal pollution in groundwater: A review. International Journal of ChemTech Research. 2014;6(14):5661-5664
  53. 53.Obi CN, Okocha CO. Microbiological and physico-chemical of selected bore-hole waters in world bank housing estate, Umuahia, Abia state, Nigeria. Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences. 2007;2(5):920-929
  54. 54.Longe EO, Balogun MR. Groundwater quality assessment near a municipal landfill, Lagos, Nigeria. Research Journal of Applied Sciences, Engineering and Technology. 2010;2(1):39-44
  55. 55.Fubara-Manuel I, Jumbo RB. The effects of septic tank locations on borehole water quality in Port Harcourt, Nigeria. International Journal of Engineering and Technology. 2014;4(5):236-264
  56. 56.Al-Sabahi E, Abdul RS, Wan Z, Al-Nozaily WY, Alshaebi F. The characteristics of leachate and ground water pollution at municipal solid waste landfill of Ibb city, Yemen. American Journal of Environmental Sciences. 2009;5(3):256-266
  57. 57.Onuorah S, Igwemadu N, Odibo F. Bacteriological quality assessment of borehole water in Ogbaru communities, Anambra state, Nigeria. Universal Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2019;7(1):1-10. DOI: 10.13189/ujcm.2019.070101
  58. 58.Adeyemi O, Oloyede OB, Olajidi AT. Physiochemical and microbial characteristics of leachate-contaminated groundwater. Asian Journal of Biochemistry. 2007;2(5):343-348
  59. 59.Adegoke OO, Bamigbowu EO, Oni ES, Ugbaja KN. Microbiological examination of sachet water sold in Aba, Abia State, Nigeria. Global Research Journal of Microbiology. 2012;2:62-66
  60. 60.Ackah-Arthur M, Amin AK, Gyamfi ET, Acquah J, Nyarko ES, Kpattah SE, et al. Assessment of the quality of sachet water consumed in urban townships of Ghana using physico-chemical indicators: A preliminary study. Advances in Applied Science Research. 2012;3:2120-2127
  61. 61.Falegan CR, Odeyemi AT, Ogunjobi LP. Bacteriological and Physico-chemicals studies of sachet water in locations at Ado- Ekiti, Ekiti State. Aquatic Biology. 2014;2:55-61
  62. 62.Adewoye AO, Adewoye SO, Opasola OA. Microbiological examination of sachet water experimentally exposed to sunlight. International Journal of Pure and Applied Sciences and Technology. 2013;18:36-42
  63. 63.Mgbakor C, Ojiegbe GC, Okonko IO, Odu NN, Alli JA, Nwaze JC, et al. Bacteriological evaluation of some sachet water on sales in Owerri metropolis, Imo State, Nigeria. Malaysian Journal of Microbiology. 2011;7:217-225
  64. 64.Onilude AA, Adesina FC, Oluboyede OA, Adeyemi BI. Micro-biological quality of sachet packaged water vended in three local government of Oyo State, Nigeria. African Journal of Food Science and Technology. 2013;4:195-200
  65. 65.Washington State Department of Health: Coliform bacteria in drinking water. 2019. Available from:https://www.doh.wa.gov/CommunityandEnvironment/DrinkingWater/Contaminants/Coliform[Accessed: 01 November 2019]
  66. 66.Edema MO, Omemu AM. Microbiology and physiochemical analysis of different water sources. International Journal of Microbiology. 2001;15(1):57-61
  67. 67.Botelho-Nevers E, Gagnaire J, Verhoeven PO, Cazorla C, Grattard F, Pozzetto B, et al. Decolonization of Staphylococcus aureus carriage. Médecine et Maladies Infectieuses. 2017;47(5):305-310
  68. 68.Verhoeven PO, Gagnaire J, Botelho-Nevers E, Grattard F, Carricajo A, Lucht F, et al. Detection and clinical relevance of Staphylococcus aureus nasal carriage: An update. Expert Review of Anti-Infective Therapy. 2014;12(1):75-89
  69. 69.Williams MR, Gallo RL. The role of the skin microbiome in atopic dermatitis. Current Allergy and Asthma Reports. 2015;15(11):65. DOI: 10.1007/s11882-015-0567-4
  70. 70.Alexander H, Paller AS, Traidl-Hoffmann C, Beck LA, De Benedetto A, Dhar S, et al. The role of bacterial skin infections in atopic dermatitis: Expert statement and review from the International Eczema Council Skin Infection Group. Brazilian Journal of Dermatology. 2019;2019:1-12. DOI: 10.1111/bjd.18643
  71. 71.Loewen K, Schreiber Y, Kirlew M, Bocking N, Kelly L. Community-associated methicillin-resistantStaphylococcus aureusinfection: Literature review and clinical update. Canadian Family Physician. 2017;63(7):512-520
  72. 72.Kırmusaoğlu S. Staphylococcal biofilms: Pathogenicity, mechanism and regulation of biofilm formation by quorum-sensing system and antibiotic resistance mechanisms of biofilm-embedded microorganisms. In: Dhanasekaran D, Thajuddin N, editors. Microbial Biofilms - Importance and Applications. Rijeka: IntechOpen;
  73. 73.Arciola CR, Campoccia D, Ravaioli S, Montanaro L. Polysaccharide intercellular adhesin in biofilm: Structural and regulatory aspects. Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology. 2015;5:1-10
  74. 74.Karampatakis T, Antachopoulos C, Tsakris A, Roilides E. Molecular epidemiology of carbapenem-resistantPseudomonas aeruginosain an endemic area: Comparison with global data. European Journal of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases. 2018;37(7):1211-1220
  75. 75.Rehman A, Patrick WM, Lamont IL. Mechanisms of ciprofloxacin resistance inPseudomonas aeruginosa: New approaches to an old problem. Journal of Medical Microbiology. 2019;68(1):1-10
  76. 76.Feng W, Sun F, Wang Q , Xiong W, Qiu X, Dai X, et al. Epidemiology and resistance characteristics ofPseudomonas aeruginosaisolates from the respiratory department of a hospital in China. Journal of Global Antimicrobial Resistance. 2017;8:142-147
  77. 77.English EL, Schutz KC, Willsey GG, Wargo MJ. Transcriptional responses ofPseudomonas aeruginosato potable water and freshwater. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 2018;84(6):1-12. DOI: 10.1128/AEM.02350-17
  78. 78.Driscoll JA, Brody SL, Kollef MH. The epidemiology, pathogenesis and treatment ofPseudomonas aeruginosainfections. Drugs. 2007;67(3):351-368
  79. 79.Kamali E, Jamali A, Ardebili A, Ezadi F, Mohebbi A. Evaluation of antimicrobial resistance, biofilm forming potential, and the presence of biofilm-related genes among clinical isolates ofPseudomonas aeruginosa. BMC Research Notes. 2020;13(1):27. DOI: 10.1186/s13104-020-4890-z
  80. 80.Moradali MF, Ghods S, Rehm BH.Pseudomonas aeruginosalifestyle: A paradigm for adaptation, survival, and persistence. Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology. 2017;7:39. DOI: 10.3389/fcimb.2017.00039
  81. 81.Hennequin C, Robin F. Correlation between antimicrobial resistance and virulence inKlebsiella pneumoniae. European Journal of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases. 2016;35(3):333-341
  82. 82.Hamza E, Dorgham SM, Hamza DA. Carbapenemase-producingKlebsiella pneumoniaein broiler poultry farming in Egypt. Journal of Global Antimicrobial Resistance. 2016;7:8-10
  83. 83.Jelić M, Hrenović J, Dekić S, Goić-Barišić I, Tambić AA. First evidence of KPC-producing ST258Klebsiella pneumoniaein river water. Journal of Hospital Infection. 2019;103(2):147-150
  84. 84.Ovejero CM, Delgado-Blas JF, Calero-Caceres W, Muniesa M, Gonzalez-Zorn B. Spread of mcr-1-carrying Enterobacteriaceae in sewage water from Spain. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. 2017;72(4):1050-1053
  85. 85.Gomez-Simmonds A, Uhlemann AC. Clinical implications of genomic adaptation and evolution of carbapenem-resistantKlebsiella pneumoniae. Journal of Infectious Diseases. 2017;215(Suppl 1):S18-S27
  86. 86.Moradigaravand D, Martin V, Peacock SJ, Parkhill J. Evolution and epidemiology of multidrug-resistantKlebsiella pneumoniaein the United Kingdom and Ireland. MBio. 2017;8(1). pii: e01976-16. DOI: 10.1128/mBio.01976-16
  87. 87.Holt KE, Wertheim H, Zadoks RN, Baker S, Whitehouse CA, Dance D, et al. Genomic analysis of diversity, population structure, virulence, and antimicrobial resistance inKlebsiella pneumoniae, an urgent threat to public health. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA;112(27):E3574-E3581. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1501049112
  88. 88.Carvalho F, George J, Sheikh HMA, Selvin R. Advances in screening, detection and enumeration of Escherichia coli using nanotechnology-based methods: A review. Journal of Biomedical Nanotechnology. 2018;14(5):829-846. DOI: 10.1166/jbn.2018.2549
  89. 89.Sarowska J, Futoma-Koloch B, Jama-Kmiecik A, Frej-Madrzak M, Ksiazczyk M, Bugla-Ploskonska G, et al. Virulence factors, prevalence and potential transmission of extraintestinal pathogenicEscherichia coliisolated from different sources: Recent reports. Gut Pathogenes. 2019;11:10. DOI: 10.1186/s13099-019-0290-0
  90. 90.Money P, Kelly AF, Gould SW, Denholm-Price J, Threlfall EJ, Fielder MD. Cattle, weather and water: MappingEscherichia coliO157:H7 infections in humans in England and Scotland. Environmental Microbiology. 2010;12(10):2633-2644
  91. 91.Guzmán D, Stoler J. An evolving choice in a diverse water market: A quality comparison of sachet water with community and household water sources in Ghana. American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. 2018;99(2):526-533
  92. 92.Mezzatesta ML, Gona F, Stefani S.Enterobacter cloacaecomplex: Clinical impact and emerging antibiotic resistance. Future Microbiology. 2012;7(7):887-902
  93. 93.Chavda KD, Chen L, Fouts DE, Sutton G, Brinkac L, Jenkins SG, et al. Comprehensive genome analysis of carbapenemase-producingEnterobacterspp.: New insights into phylogeny, population structure, and resistance mechanisms. mBio;7(6): e02093-16. DOI: 10.1128/mBio.02093-16
  94. 94.Armbruster CE, Mobley HLT, Pearson MM. Pathogenesis ofProteus mirabilisinfection. EcoSal Plus. 2018;8(1). DOI: 10.1128/ecosalplus.ESP-0009-2017
  95. 95.Drzewiecka D. Significance and roles of Proteus spp. bacteria in natural environments. Microbial Ecology. 2016;72(4):741-758
  96. 96.Rózalski A, Sidorczyk Z, Kotełko K. Potential virulence factors ofProteus bacilli. Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews. 1997;61(1):65-89
  97. 97.Morgenstein RM, Szostek B, Rather PN. Regulation of gene expression during swarmer cell differentiation inProteus mirabilis. FEMS Microbiology Reviews. 2010;34(5):753-763
  98. 98.Faruque SM, Albert MJ, Mekalanos JJ. Epidemiology, genetics, and ecology of toxigenicVibrio cholerae. Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews. 1998;62:1301-1314
  99. 99.Zhu J, Miller MB, Vance RE, Dziejman M, Bassler BL, Mekalanos JJ. Quorum-sensing regulators control virulence gene expression inVibrio cholerae. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA. 2002;99(5):3129-3134
  100. 100.Cabral JP. Water microbiology. Bacterial pathogens and water. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2010;7(10):3657-3703
  101. 101.WHO cholera key facts 2019 [Internet]. Available from:https://www.who.int/en/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/cholera[Accessed: 02 January 2020]
  102. 102.Elimian KO, Musah A, Mezue S, Oyebanji O, Yennan S, Jinadu A, et al. Descriptive epidemiology of cholera outbreak in Nigeria, January–November, 2018: Implications for the global roadmap strategy. BMC Public Health. 2019;19:1264. DOI: 10.1186/s12889-019-7559-6
  103. 103.Dalhat MM, Isa AN, Nguku P, Nasir S-G, Urban K, Abdulaziz M, et al. Descriptive characterization of the 2010 cholera outbreak in Nigeria. BMC Public Health. 2014;14:1167. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-14-1167
  104. 104.Ishida R, Ueda K, Kitano T, Yamamoto T, Mizutani Y, Tsutsumi Y, et al. Fatal community-acquiredBacillus cereuspneumonia in an immunocompetent adult man: A case report. BMC Infectious Diseases. 2019;19(1):197. DOI: 10.1186/s12879-019-3836-3
  105. 105.Chen D, Li Y, Lv J, Liu X, Gao P, Zhen G, et al. A foodborne outbreak of gastroenteritis caused by Norovirus andBacillus cereusat a university in the Shunyi District of Beijing, China 2018: A retrospective cohort study. BMC Infectious Diseases. 2019;19(1):910. DOI: 10.1186/s12879-019-4570-6
  106. 106.Szabo JG, Meiners G, Heckman L, Rice EW, Hall J. Decontamination of bacillus spores adhered to iron and cement-mortar drinking water infrastructure in a model system using disinfectants. Journal of Environmental Management. 2017;187:1-7
  107. 107.Jeżewska-Frąckowiak J, Seroczyńska K, Banaszczyk J, Jedrzejczak G, Żylicz-Stachula A, Skowron PM. The promises and risks of probiotic bacillus species. Acta Biochimica Polonica. 2018;65(4):509-519
  108. 108.Bottone EJ. Bacillus cereus, a volatile human pathogen. Clinical Microbiology Reviews. 2010;23(2):382-398
  109. 109.Slamti L, Lereclus D. A cell–cell signaling peptide activates the PlcR virulence regulon in bacteria of the Bacillus cereus group. The EMBO Journal. 2002;21:4550-4559
  110. 110.Okutani A, Inoue S, Noguchi A, Kaku Y, Morikawa S. Whole-genome sequence-based comparison and profiling of virulence-associated genes of Bacillus cereus group isolates from diverse sources in Japan. BMC Microbiology. 2019;19(1):296. DOI: 10.1186/s12866-019-1678-1
  111. 111.Kariuki S, Gordon MA, Feasey N, Parry CM. Antimicrobial resistance and management of invasive salmonella disease. Vaccine. 2015;33(Suppl 3):C21-C29. DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.03.102
  112. 112.Threlfall EJ. Antimicrobial drug resistance in Salmonella: Problems and perspectives in food- and water-borne infections. FEMS Microbiological Reviews. 2002;26(2):141-148
  113. 113.Cuypers WL, Jacobs J, Wong V, Klemm EJ, Deborggraeve S, Van Puyvelde S. Fluoroquinolone resistance in Salmonella: Insights by whole-genome sequencing. Microbial Genomics. 2018:4(7). DOI: 10.1099/mgen.0.000195
  114. 114.Liu H, Whitehouse CA, Li B. Presence and persistence of Salmonella in water: The impact on microbial quality of water and food safety. Frontiers in Public Health. 30 May 2018;6:159. DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2018.00159
  115. 115.Akinyemi KO, Oyefolu AOB, Mutiu WB, Iwalokun BA, Ayeni ES, Ajose SO, et al. Typhoid fever: Tracking the trend in Nigeria. The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. 2018;99(Suppl 3):41-47

Written By

Ogueri Nwaiwu, Chiugo Claret Aduba and Oluyemisi Eniola Oni

Submitted: June 4th, 2019Reviewed: February 18th, 2020Published: August 20th, 2020