AccScience Publishing / AJWEP / Volume 19 / Issue 4 / DOI: 10.3233/AJW220056
RESEARCH ARTICLE

Microbiology of Contaminated Water

Shengnu Qiu1* Dmitry Snegirev2 Vladimir Domatskiy3 Dmitry Gura4,5 Nikita Fedotov6
Show Less
1 Division of Biosciences, Faculty of Life Sciences, University College London, London, UK
2 Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Russian State Agricultural University–Moscow Agricultural Academy (RSAU–MAA named after K.A. Timiryazev), Moscow, Russian Federation
3 Department of Infectious and Invasive Diseases, Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution of the Higher Education Northern Trans-Ural SAU, Tyumen, Russian Federation
4 Department of Cadastre and Geoengineering, Kuban State Technological University, Krasnodar, Russian Federation
5 Department of Geodesy, Kuban State Agrarian University, Krasnodar, Russian Federation
6 Department IC-6 “Computer Systems, Complexes and Networks”, Bauman Moscow State Technical University Moscow, Russian Federation
AJWEP 2022, 19(4), 55–61; https://doi.org/10.3233/AJW220056
Received: 11 October 2021 | Revised: 1 November 2021 | Accepted: 1 November 2021 | Published online: 1 November 2021
© 2021 by the Author(s). This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ )
Abstract

Microbiological methods for identifying the status of water in modified anthropogenic zones are the most accurate techniques that reflect the actual condition of water bodies. This work aims to perform a comparative analysis of hydrochemical and microbiological indicators in 20 small rivers of the Surgutsky and Oktyabrsky districts of Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug of the Russian Federation. The research was conducted in 2018-2019 in Surgutsky and Oktyabrsky districts using water samples collected in spring, summer and autumn from 20 small rivers. The neutral and mildly alkaline values of pH were the highest in summer (7.6). Maximum ammonium ion concentrations of up to 0.5 mg per 1 dm3 were registered during spring when the snow was melting. No differences in total microbial accounts between 2018 and 2019 were noted in the Surgutsky district (p ≥ 0.05). However, there were differences between rivers. Thus, rivers No. 4, 5, and 7-10 accounted for the minimum in both years (microbial count is 101-102), while rivers No. 1-3 had 10-12 times higher microbial count (p ≤ 0.001, 103). For river No. 6, the values were 4 times higher compared with rivers No. 1-3 (p ≤ 0.01, 104) and 30-40 times higher compared with rivers No. 4, 5, and 7-10 (p ≤ 0.0001, 101-2 versus 104). The pollution in 2018-2019 can be considered constant. Rivers No. 18 and 19 in the Oktyabrsky region were the most contaminated, with microbial accounts 5 to 10 times higher than others (p ≤ 0.001, 102-5 versus 101). River No. 12, with a microbial count of 2-5 thousand per 1 ml in 2018, reached 42-45 thousand per 1 ml in 2019 (p ≤ 0.001), a value higher than in the constantly polluted rivers No. 18-19 (p ≤ 0.05 with 2019). Microflora was consistent during the two-year study. It is explained by the fact that the number of bacteria is determined by water temperature, indicators of dissolved O2 concentration, and indicators of organic compound concentration. The cluster analysis revealed 16 genera of bacteria and 3 mold fungi in the waters of 20 rivers studied. The Oktyabrsky district has the most significant number of very polluted rivers, whereas there are a lot of relatively clean rivers. The Surgutsky district is characterized by very clean rivers, along with moderately polluted rivers. Compared with the Oktyabrsky district, the rivers in the Surgutskydistrict are cleaner in microbiology because of lower anthropogenic pressure. Bacterial contamination can be reduced if the release of organic matter to waste water is lower, thereby substantially reducing the role of ammonifying bacteria in the microbiome.

Keywords
Bacterial pollution
microflora
small rivers
total microbial count.
References
  1. Abia, A.L.K., Ubomba-Jaswa, E., Genthe, B. and M.N.B.  Momba (2016). Quantitative microbial risk assessment  (QMRA) shows increased public health risk associated  with exposure to river water under conditions of river bed  sediment resuspension. Science of the Total Environment,  566-567: 1143-1151.
  2. Bo, W., Wang, X., Xiao, Q.Y. and Z. Ouyang (2017).  Influence of land use and point source pollution on water  quality in a developed region: A case study in Shunde,  China. International Journal of Environmental Research  and Public Health, 15(2): 51.
  3. Cai, C., Gu, X., Ye, Y., Yang, C., Dai, X., Chen, D. and C.  Yang (2013). Assessment of pollutant loads discharged  from aquaculture ponds around Taihu Lake, China.  Aquaculture Research, 44: 795-806. 
  4. Castine, S.A., McKinnon, A.D., Paul, N.A., Trott, L.A. and  R. deNys (2013). Wastewater treatment for land-based  aquaculture: Improvements and value-added alternatives in model systems from Australia. Aquaculture Environment  Interactions, 4: 285-300.
  5. Chigor, V.N., Sibanda, T. and A.I. Okoh (2013). Studies on  the bacteriological qualities of the Buffalo River and three  source water dams along its course in the Eastern Cape  Province of South Africa. Environmental Science and  Pollution Research, 20(6): 4125-4136. 
  6. Dauda, A.B., Ajadi, A., Tola-Fabunmi, A.S. and A.O.  Akinwole (2019). Waste production in aquaculture:  Sources, components and managements in different culture  systems. Aquaculture and Fisheries, 4: 81-88.
  7. Defoirdt, T., Thanh, L.D., van Delsen, B., de Schryver, P.,  Sorgeloos, P., Boon, N. and P. Bossier (2011). N-acyl  homoserine lactone-degrading Bacillus strains isolated  from aquaculture animals. Aquaculture, 311: 258-260. 
  8. Gan, Y., Ye, Z., Zhao, Q., Li, L. and X. Lu (2020). Spatial  denitrification performance and microbial community  composition in an up-flow immobilized biofilter for  nitrate micro-polluted water treatment. Journal of Cleaner  Production, 258: 120913.
  9. Hoult, J., Krieg, N., Sneath, P., Staley, J. and S. Williams  (1997). Identifier of Bergey’s bacteria. In: 2 vols Volume  1. Moscow: Mir.
  10. Jin, G., Jeng, H.-W., Bradford, H. and A.J. Englande (2004).  Comparison of E. coli, enterococci, and fecal coliform as  indicators for brackish water quality assessment. Water  Environment Research, 76(3): 245-255.
  11. Kebede, G., Mushi, D., Linke, R.B., Dereje, O., Lakew,  A., Hayes, D.S., Farnleitner, A.H. and W. Graf (2020).  Macroinvertebrate indices versus microbial fecal pollution  characteristics for water quality monitoring reveals  contrasting results for an Ethiopian river. Ecological  Indicators, 108: 105733.
  12. Klose, K., Cooper, S.D., Leydecker, A.D. and J. Kreitler  (2012). Relationships among catchment land use and  concentrations of nutrients, algae, and dissolved oxygen  in a southern California river. Freshwater Science, 31(3):  908-927.
  13. Koffi, N., Julien, O., Ouattara, N.K., Passerat, J. and P. Servais  (2011). Faecal contamination of water and sediment in the  rivers of the Scheldt drainage network. Environmental  Monitoring and Assessment, 183(1-4): 243-257. 
  14. Lainé, M., Morin, S. and J. Tison-Rosebery (2014). A  multicompartment approach - Diatoms, macrophytes,  benthic macroinvertebrates and fish-to assess the impact  of toxic industrial releases on a small French river. PLoS  One, 9(7): e102358.
  15. Lear, G., Dopheide, A., Ancion, P. and G.D. Lewis (2011).  A comparison of bacterial, ciliate and macroinvertebrate  indicators of stream ecological health. Aquatic Ecology,  45(4): 517-527.
  16. Li, Z., Yu, E., Zhang, K., Gong, W., Xia, Y., Tian, J., Wang,  G. and J. Xie (2020). Water treatment effect, microbial  community structure, and metabolic characteristics in  a field-scale aquaculture wastewater treatment system.  Frontiers in Microbiology, 11: 930.
  17. Paule-Mercado, M.A., Ventura, J.S., Memon, S.A., Jahng,  D., Kang, J.H. and C.H. Lee (2016). Monitoring and  predicting the fecal indicator bacteria concentrations from  agricultural, mixed land use and urban stormwater runoff.  Science of the Total Environment, 550: 1171-1181.
  18. Rajiv, P., Salam, H.A., Kamaraj, M., Sivaraj, R. and A.  Sankar (2012). Physico chemical and microbial analysis  of different river waters in western Tamil Nadu, India.  Research Journal of Environment Sciences, 1: 2-6.
  19. Zhao, Y., Sharma, A., Sivakumar, B., Marshall, L., Wang, P.  and J. Jiang (2014). A Bayesian method for multi-pollution  source water quality model and seasonal water quality  management in river segments. Environmental Modelling  & Software, 57: 216-226.
  20. Zhong, F., Gao, Y.N., Yu, T., Zhang, Y., Xu, D., Xiao, E.,  He, F., Zhou, Q. and Z. Wu (2011). The management of  undesirable cyanobacteria blooms in channel catfish ponds  using a constructed wetland: Contribution to the control  of off-flavor occurrences. Water Research, 45: 6479-6488.
Share
Back to top
Asian Journal of Water, Environment and Pollution, Electronic ISSN: 1875-8568 Print ISSN: 0972-9860, Published by AccScience Publishing