Coliform Bacteria: The Effect of Sediments on Decay Rates and on Required Detention Times in Stormwater BMPs

Abstract

Fecal indicator bacteria, such as total coliforms and E. coli, are a challenge to control in urban and rural stormwater runoff. To assess the challenges of improving bacterial water quality standards in surface waters, microcosm experiments were conducted to assess how decay rates of total coliforms and E. coli are affected by sediments and associated organic matter. Samples were collected at a lake embayment to create laboratory microcosms consisting of different combinations of unsterilized and sterilized water and sediment. Calculated first-order decay rate constants ranged from 0.021 to 0.047 h-1 for total coliforms and 0.017 and 0.037 h-1 for E. coli, depending on how each microcosm was prepared. It is evident that sediment in contact with the water column decreases bacteria decay rate, showing that care should be taken when designing stormwater treatment measures. In addition, high organic carbon content in the sediment temporarily increased bacteria concentrations in the water column. The results demonstrate that stormwater treatment measures, such as extended detention basins and constructed wetlands, must hold water for several days to allow for reduction of bacterial concentrations to acceptable levels. In addition, to troubleshoot detention basins and constructed wetlands for causes of high effluent bacterial concentrations, analyses of sediment, organic carbon, and water column depth should be conducted.

Share and Cite:

A. Kinnaman, C. Surbeck and D. Usner, "Coliform Bacteria: The Effect of Sediments on Decay Rates and on Required Detention Times in Stormwater BMPs," Journal of Environmental Protection, Vol. 3 No. 8A, 2012, pp. 787-797. doi: 10.4236/jep.2012.328094.

1. Introduction

The presence of fecal indicator bacteria (FIB) in surface waters can have detrimental consequences to human and economic health. For example, exceedingly high occurrences of these bacteria in recreational beaches can put bathers at risk of contracting illnesses. As a prevention to illnesses, beaches are closed, resulting in economic losses in municipalities that depend on tourism [1,2]. To protect recreation and ecosystems in water bodies, the United States’ Clean Water Act 303(d) impaired waters list includes thousands of creeks, rivers, and coastal zones classified as impaired for pathogens [3]. The denotation of “pathogens” includes known pathogenic organisms but, more commonly, FIB, such as total coliforms, fecal coliforms, Escherichia coli (E. coli), and enterococci bacteria. A large contributor to FIB in surface waters is stormwater runoff [4,5]. Solutions to controlling pollution to surface waters from stormwater runoff are called Best Management Practices (BMPs), also known as Stormwater Control Measures (SCMs), and include a range of strategies from educating the public to cleaning animal feces from paved surfaces to constructing stormwater treatment detention basins and wetlands. However, current efforts to reduce concentrations of FIB using stormwater BMPs have yielded inconsistent results. Monitoring efforts of BMP inlet and outlet points during storms generally report minor decreases or even increases of FIB at the outlets [6]. Some monitoring efforts of the same type of BMP but in different locations yield opposite results [7], and some BMPs perform well in all seasons except summer [8].

Reasons for inconsistent results in treating FIB with BMPs are the complexities associated with this type of pollutant. The experiments reported in this paper give insight on what may be necessary for structural BMPs, such as extended detention basins and constructed wetlands, to effectively reduce FIB. An extended detention basin is a constructed pond used to detain excess stormwater runoff as well as promote settling of various pollutants found in runoff. As the stormwater runoff is detained in the basin, sedimentation promotes the reduction of total suspended solids (TSS) and other pollutants attached to suspended solids. A constructed wetland is used in a similar manner to the extended detention basin, but it uses plants to aid in the reduction of TSS, FIB, organic materials, and nutrients in the water.

Bed sediments have the potential to increase FIB concentrations in the water column by furnishing nutrients and additional FIB but may decrease water column FIB by providing a source of predator organisms. In this study we examined how FIB concentrations behave in the water column when bed sediments are present. We hypothesized that the decay rate of FIB in the water column, and therefore in structural BMPs, decreases with the presence of bottom sediments. We used microcosm studies to experimentally determine FIB decay rates for five treatments that provided input into reasons for FIB decay in the water column and the effect of sediments. Further, we estimated the hydraulic residence time necessary in an extended detention basin and constructed wetland to reduce total coliform concentrations to an acceptable level, based on the decay rates from the experiments.

This research builds on literature that considers the impact of sediments and associated organic matter and nutrients on water quality. Organic matter and nutrients in the water column can impact the occurrence of FIB, whether the nutrients come from sediment or another source. For example, Smith and Prairie [9](Smith and Prairie 2004) studied the effect of dissolved organic carbon (DOC) and nutrients on the behavior of bacteria in different types of lakes. They found that bacteria growth rates were positively correlated with total phosphorus concentrations and that DOC usage by lake bacteria depends strongly on the availability of phosphorus; the combination of carbon and phosphorus produced significantly greater bacteria concentrations than phosphorus alone. Similar results were found by Surbeck et al. [10], but the bacteria were FIB in a concrete-lined urban river where the source of phosphorus and organic carbon was not sediment, but the discharge from a wastewater treatment plant. Additionally, Jeng et al. [11] found that indicator organisms entered an estuary through stormwater runoff and settled to the bottom sediments, experiencing prolonged survival. Bolster et al. [12] were able to increase concentrations of E. coli in laboratory experiments of estuarine waters with high nutrient content.

Microcosm studies on FIB have been used by Craig et al. [13] and consisted of intact sediment cores taken from coastal areas with distinct sediment characteristics to determine the decay rates of E. coli in water and sediment. It was found that E. coli persisted in sediment, compared with overlying water. Small particle size and high organic carbon content were found to enhance survival; that is, sediments containing high proportions of clay and nutrients are more conducive to survival than sandy sediments.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Sample Collection

Water and sediment samples were collected during four events from an embayment (the flooded mouth of a tributary stream) contiguous with a manmade lake in northern Mississippi, USA. Water and sediment were collected from this water body and used in laboratory microcosms to simulate performance of BMPs with high FIB loadings.

The water and sediment samples were collected in Nalgene bottles (Nalgene Company, Rochester, NY) previously autoclaved at 121˚C in an EZ 9 autoclave (2340EA, Tuttnauer, Hauppauge, NY). Sediment samples were collected with 2-inch by 4-inch aluminum sediment core sleeves previously autoclaved at 134˚C. The sleeve was filled approximately halfway so that the sediment would represent the top 5 cm, which contains the most recent nutrient influx [14]. A sediment particle size analysis [15] was performed on the sediment and yielded size fractions of 71% sand and 29% silt.

Water samples were collected from the embayment surface, and sediment samples were collected from a submerged portion of the bank on four dates following precipitation events (Table 1). All samples were transported on ice, and microcosm set-up began once the samples were brought to the laboratory at the University of Mississippi.

2.2. Pre-Microcosm Preparation and Microbiological Analyses

The sediment was mixed to make a homogeneous soil matrix in order to provide each microcosm with similar sediment characteristics. This was accomplished by putting the sediment from the Nalgene bottles in an aluminum pan and manually mixing. Afterwards, sediment for two of the microcosms was sterilized by autoclaving at 121˚C.

Next, bacteria were extracted from the unsterilized sediment within three hours of collection. This was done following a procedure adapted from Craig et al. [16] and Jeong et al. [17]. Once the supernatant of the extraction procedure was retrieved, it was processed for analysis of total coliform and E. coli, in duplicate, using the defined-substrate method Colilert (IDEXX Laboratories, Inc., Westbrook, ME), in units of most probable number (MPN) per kg, and recorded. FIB analysis was performed on water samples using the Colilert method, but with concentration results in units of MPN per 100 ml (or 1

Table 1. Summary of initial concentrations of constituents in embayment water and sediment used for microcosm studies.

deciliter, dl). Colilert is known as Standard Method 9223 [18].

2.3. Microcosm Preparation

Following the sediment preparation and FIB quantification described above, seven microcosms were set up in 500-ml glass Erlenmeyer flasks. When necessary, water was filter-sterilized with a 0.22-micron filter (Model number 8532, Corning, Corning, NY). Sediments were sterilized by autoclaving. The microcosms were incubated in a shaker incubator (Classic C24, New Brunswick Scientific, Edison, NJ) rotating at 60 rpm to prevent settling of FIB, while mimicking the slow movement of water in a detention basin or constructed wetland. The shaker incubator was stopped for sample collection, but bacterial settling would not have occurred in the few minutes in which the shaker was stopped. An incubation temperature of 30˚C was used for all experiments as a representation of a summertime (i.e., recreation) water temperature. The incubator had a glass cover and was located near a window, exposing the microcosms to sunlight during the daytime.

Figure 1 is an illustration of Microcosms 1 through 5, which are described next. Microcosm 1 was composed of embayment water alone and was used to monitor FIB die-off free from the influence of bed sediment. Microcosm 2 was composed of embayment water and bottom sediment. This combination simulated natural conditions and was used to monitor FIB in the water as affected by nutrients associated with the water and nutrients and FIB

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1] J. M. Colford, T. J. Wade, K. C. Schiff, C. C. Wright, J. F. Griffith, S. K. Sandhu, S. Burns, M. D. Sobsey, G. Lovelace and S. B. Weisberg, “Water Quality Indicators and the Risk of Illness at Beaches with Nonpoint Sources of Fecal Contamination,” Epidemiology, Vol. 18, 2007, pp. 27-35.
[2] D. Mardon and D. Stretch, “Comparative Assessment of Water Quality at Durban Beaches according to Local and International Guidelines,” Water SA, Vol. 30, No. 3, 2004, pp. 317-324. Hdoi:10.4314/wsa.v30i3.5079
[3] USEPA, “National Summary of Impaired Waters and TMDL Information,” 2012. http://iaspub.epa.gov/waters10/attains_nation_cy.control?p_report_type=T
[4] C. Q. Surbeck, S. C. Jiang, J. H. Ahn and S. B. Grant, “Flow Fingerprinting Fecal Pollution and Suspended Solids in Stormwater Runoff from an Urban Coastal Watershed,” Environmental Science & Technology, Vol. 40, No. 14, 2006, pp. 4435-4441. Hdoi:10.1021/es060701h
[5] T. M. Petersen, H. S. Rifai, M. Suarez and A. R. Stein, “Bacteria Loads from Point and Nonpoint Sources in an Urban Watershed,” Journal of Environmental Engineering-ASCE, Vol. 131, No. 10, 2005, pp. 1414-1425. Hdoi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9372(2005)131:10(1414)
[6] H. Li and A. P. Davis, “Water Quality Improvement through Reductions of Pollutant Loads Using Bioretention,” Journal of Environmental Engineering-ASCE, Vol. 135, No. 8, 2009, pp. 567-576. Hdoi:10.1061/(ASCE)EE.1943-7870.0000026
[7] J. M. Hathaway, W. F. Hunt and S. Jadlocki, “Indicator Bacteria Removal in Storm-Water Best Management Practices in Charlotte, North Carolina,” Journal of Environmental Engineering-ASCE, Vol. 135, No. 12, 2009, pp. 1275-1285. Hdoi:10.1061/(ASCE)EE.1943-7870.0000107
[8] B. M. Wadzuk, M. Rea, G. Woodruff, K. Flynn and R. G. Traver, “Water-Quality Performance of a Constructed Stormwater Wetland for All Flow Conditions,” Journal of the American Water Resources Association, Vol. 46, No. 2, 2010, pp. 385-394. Hdoi:10.1111/j.1752-1688.2009.00408.x
[9] E. M. Smith and Y. T. Prairie, “Bacterial Metabolism and Growth Efficiency in Lakes: The importance of Phosphorus Availability,” Limnology and Oceanography, Vol. 49, No. 1, 2004, pp. 137-147. Hdoi:10.4319/lo.2004.49.1.0137
[10] C. Q. Surbeck, S. C. Jiang and S. B. Grant, “Ecological Control of Fecal Indicator Bacteria in an Urban Stream,” Environmental Science & Technology, Vol. 44, No. 2, 2010, pp. 631-637. Hdoi:10.1021/es903496m
[11] H. C. Jeng, A. J. England and H. B. Bradford, “Indicator Organisms Associated with Stormwater Suspended Particles and Estuarine Sediment,” Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Vol. 40, No. 4, 2005, pp. 779-771. doi:10.1081/ESE-200048264
[12] C. H. Bolster, J. M. Bromley and S. H. Jones, “Recovery of Chlorine-Exposed Escherichia coli in Estuarine Microcosms,” Environmental Science & Technology, Vol. 39, No. 9, 2005, pp. 3083-3089. Hdoi:10.1021/es048643s
[13] D. L. Craig, H. J. Fallowfield and N. J. Cromar, “Use of Microcosms to Determine the Persistence of Escherichia coli in Recreational Coastal Water and Sediment and Validation with in Situ Measurements,” Journal of Applied Bacteriology, Vol. 96, No. 5, 2004, pp. 922-930. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2672.2004.02243.x
[14] R. L. Smith, “The Resilience of Bottomland Hardwood Wetlands Soils Following Timber Harvest,” M.S. Thesis, University of Mississippi, Oxford, 1997.
[15] Soil Survey Division Staff, “Soil Survey Manual,” Handbook 18, US Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, 1993.
[16] D. L. Craig, H. J. Fallowfield and N. J. Cromar, “Enumeration of Faecal Coliforms from Recreational Coastal Sites: Evaluation of Techniques for the Separation of Bacteria from Sediments,” Journal of Applied Microbiology, Vol. 93, No. 4, 2002, pp. 557-565. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2672.2002.01730.x
[17] Y. Jeong, S. B. Grant, S. Ritter, A. Pednekar, L. Candelaria and C. Winant, “Identifying Pollutant Sources in Tidally Mixed Systems: Case Study of Fecal Indicator Bacteria from Marinas in Newport Bay, Southern California,” Environmental Science & Technology, Vol. 39, No. 23, 2005, pp. 9083-9093. Hdoi:10.1021/es0482684
[18] A. D. Eaton, L. S. Clesceri, E. W. Rice and A. E. Greenbert, “Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater,” American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association, Water Environment Federation, Washington DC, 2005.
[19] D. W. Nelson and L. E. Sommers, “Total carbon, organic carbon, and organic matter,” In: A. L. Page, et al., Eds., Methods of Soil Analysis Part 2, American Society of Agronomy, Madison, 1996, pp. 961-1010.
[20] USEPA, “Total Maximum Daily Loads with Stormwater Sources: A Summary of 17 TMDLs, July 2007 EPA 841- R-07-002,” National Center of Environmental Publications, Washington DC, 2007.
[21] USEPA, “Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria—1986. EPA 440-5-84-002,” National Center of Environmental Publications, Washington DC, 1986.
[22] S. C. Chapra, “Surface Water-Quality Modeling,” WCB McGraw-Hill, Boston, 1997.
[23] Wright Water Engineers Inc. and Geosyntec Consultants, “International Stormwater BMP Database, Pollutant Category Summary: Fecal Indicator Bacteria,” 2010. www.bmpdatabase.org
[24] S. D. Struck, A. Selvakumar and M. Borst, “Performance of Stormwater Retention Ponds and Constructed Wetlands in Reducing Microbial Concentrations EPA 600-R- 06-102,” National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Urban Watershed Management Branch, Edison, NJ, 2006.
[25] A. P. Davis and R. H. McCuen, “Stormwater Management for Smart Growth,” Springer, New York, 2005.
[26] H. M. Solo-Gabriele, M. A. Wolfert, T. R. Desmarais and C. J. Palmer, “Sources of Escherichia coli in a Coastal Subtropical Environment,” Applied and Environmental Microbiology, Vol. 66, 2000, pp. 230-237.
[27] R. Fujioka, C. Sian-Denton, M. Borja, J. Castro and K. Morphew, “Soil: The Environmental Sources of E. coli and Enterococci in Guam’s Streams,” Journal of Applied Microbiology Symposium Supplement, Vol. 85, 1999, pp. 83S-89S.
[28] P. La Liberte and D. J. Grimes, “Survival of Escherichia coli in Lake Bottom Sediment,” Applied and Environmental Microbiology, Vol. 43, No. 3, 1982, pp. 623-628.
[29] M. Vital, D. Stucki, T. Egli and F. Hammes, “Evaluating the Growth Potential of Pathogenic Bacteria in Water,” Applied and Environmental Microbiology, Vol. 76, No. 19, 2010, pp. 6477-6484. Hdoi:10.1128/AEM.00794-10

Copyright © 2024 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.