-------
o
o
o
o
o
o
UJ
h-
CO CM VO CM
-a- in o co
....
o o o o
0)
rH
P.
C$
co
rH
rH
-------
Bw
a
« -rl
•° 2
(X
p.
•H C
J3 0)
oo a.
c o
O '^
•H
•U M
a) 0
rH J-l
C3
iri
CO
(U
I
•H
Ol/ndd
901
103
-------
1
•
m
1 , ,
\
• •
• \
00
g
O
4J
CO
1
H
O
m
m 01 co oo
*<}• t^ ^3 *sf
O O O O
o o o o
4-1 U 4J 4J
co in co t*^
rH CO >* rH
O O O CO
O VO rH r-.
CO in CN rH
O CD CD O
rH
rt
en
1
o
J-4
co
iJ«J w o
rH 0 O 1-1
rH tfl 4J *J
1
t>
§
6
o
UH
•H
,-1
O
rH
n)
O i
(U
MH
CO
0)
i
cu -H
43 O
P.
1*8
CO CX
a o
o *-•'
CO ill
rH 4J
& 0
m
co
01 /Odd
901
E
•H
104
-------
1
. cN vo * ^^
M . . O •
O O I O
o o o o
$4 4J 4J 4J 4J
O\ 00 O tS \O
O CS VO rH
CD O O O
i-H -* -
(M
• 4 o
o
o
P.
0
m
1
S
a
» o
o
* CO
Lu
»
1 »
i o
_J
W
Q
0)
"B
«_J
"PI
O
0
o
o
o
««
a) OQ
td m
o
0) O
« cu
o> V
a ai
§s
0
4J
n
«j»4!i oi vndd snyiA oon
00
•rl
105
-------
O
O
Ul
o
Q
V
4J
cd
o
4-1
ca
•a
n)
o
o.
o
05
1
o
.g
8
O J
rtj* (j
tlJ «
u
o
S
2
Q)
SW
0)
09
•H 4J
xi a
CO -H
C3 O
O d
A
S
m
en
«•»»*!! 01 /Hdd
9CT1
106
-------
ratios are indicated by solid and dashed lines on each plot. The
scatter of the data relative to the theoretical ratios can be seen.
The ratios of total coliform to fecal colifonn (FC/TC) and fecal coli-
form to fecal streptococci (FC/FS) are often used to evaluate the pos-
sible source of contamination; A FC/TC ratio of greater than 0.1 is
believed to be indicative of sewage. A FC/FS ratio of 4.0 or greater
is believed to be indicative of human feces and a ratio of 1.0 or less
is believed to be indicative of animal feces.
Figure 36a shows the relative levels of total coliform, fecal
streptococci and enterococci compared to the levels of fecal coliform
for raw sewage taken at Back River Wastewater Treatment Plant, sample
site A. The raw sewage provides a point of comparison for the data
obtained for urban streams and storm runoff. FC/TC ratios in raw
sewage lie between 0.01 to 1.0 with the. large majority of samples having
ratios of 0.1 to 1.0. The FC/FS ratios observed for raw sewage lie
between 0.1 to 100 with 61% of the samples having ratios of 4.0 or
greater. Similar relationships can be seen between enterococci to fecal
coliform (FC/Ent). It should be noted that even in raw sewage a sizable
variation between the ratios of indicators was observed.
The relationship between the levels of fecal coliforms and the
other bacterial indicators in the urban streams: Herring Run, Jones
Falls and Gwynns Falls is shown in Figures 36b, c and d, respectively.
FC/TC ratios lie predominantly between 0.1 and 1.0 for Herring Run and
Jones Falls. In the Gwynns Falls similar ratios predominate but more
samples were found to have FC/TC ratios less than 0.1. Significant
variability in FC/FS ratios was observed for the urban streams. About
20%, 42% and 22% of the samples had FC/FS ratios of 4.0 or greater in
Herring Run, Jones Falls and Gwynns Falls, respectively. The frequency
of samples with FC/FS ratios of 1 or less was 46% in Herring Run, 27%
in Jones Falls and 33% in Gwynns Falls. A large portion of the samples
in each of the urban streams had FC/FS ratios in the intermediate range
of between 1.0 and 4.0. Similar results were obtained with enterococci
levels when compared to fecal coliform data.
The relationships between the indicator groups of microorganisms
for the storm samples are shown by site in Figure 37a through 37f.
FC/TC ratios in the large majority of the samples collected at each
of the storm locations lie between 0.1 to 1.0. FC/FS ratios found
in the storm samples are markedly different from those observed for
the background samples. More than 90% of the samples collected at
Stoney Run (Figure 37a), Glen Avenue (Figure 37b), Bush Street (Figure
37e) and Northwood Figure 37f) had FC/FS ratios less than 4.0. Greater
than 80% of the samples from these stations had FC/FS ratios of 1.0
or less. Only 18% and 12% of the samples collected at Howard Park
(Figure 37c) and the Jones Falls storm drain (Figure 37d) had FC/FS
ratios of 4.0 or greater. The frequency of samples of these stations
with FC/FS ratios of 1.0 or less was 41% for Howard Park and 76% for
the Jones Falls storm drain. Ratios of FC/Ent. appeared to shift up
slightly for the storm runoff samples compared to the FC/FS. In each
case a larger percentage of samples had FC/Ent. ratios greater than
1.0. Unfortunately, the significance of FC/Ent. ratios have not been
evaluated.
107
-------
456789
LOG FC/ 100 ml.
Figure 36a. Back River raw sewage, site A. Ratio of fecal coliform
to total coliform, fecal streptococci, and enterococci.
108
-------
8 5
O 3
O
O 5
O
CO
u.
O 3
3
2
O 6
O
O
O
8
O
o:
O
O
1234567
LOG FC/ 100 ml.
Figure 36b. Herring Run, site B. Ratio of fecal coliform to total
coliform, fecal streptococci and enterococci.
109
-------
O 5
O
8
O 5
O
. 7
O 6
O
i •
O
3 4
O
O
O
Figure 36c.
I 234567
LOG FC/ 100 ml.
Jones Falls, site C. Ratio of fecal coliform to
total coliform, fecal streptococci, and enterococci,
110
-------
Figure 36d.
45678
LOG FC/IOOml.
Gwynns Falls, site D. Ratio of fecal coliform to total
coliform, fecal streptococci, and enterococci.
Ill
-------
345678
LOG FC/ 100 ml.
Figure 37a. Stoney Run stormwater , site F. Ratio of fecal
coliform to total coliform, fecal streptococci and
enterococci.
112
-------
234567
LOG FC/ 100 ml.
Figure 37b. Glen Avenue stormwater, site G. Ratio of fecal coli-
form to total coliform, fecal streptococci, and
enterococci.
113
-------
345678
LOG FC/ 100 ml.
Figure 37c. Howard Park combined sewer, site H. Ratio of fecal
coliform to total coliform, fecal streptococci, and
enterococci.
114
-------
345678
LOG FC/IOO ml.
Figure 37d. Jones Falls storrawater, site K. Ratio of fecal coli-
form to total coliform, fecal streptococci, and
enterococci.
115
-------
o "
O 4
3
3
E
O 6
O
V)
u.
X I
O
8
o
(T
UJ
O
3
a 3 4 5 6 7 8
LOG FC/ 100 ml.
Figure 37e. Bush Street storrawater, site L. Ratio of fecal coli-
form to total coliform, fecal streptococci and
enterococci.
116
-------
7
6
•
i
O 5
O
^ 4
O
E
O 5
CO
u.
O 3
O
O 6
O
O
O
4
4
o
cc
gr 3
LU
2
O
O
I 2 3 4 5 67
LOG FC/ 100 mi.
Figure 37f. Northwood stormwater, site M. Ratio of fecal coliform
to total coliform, fecal streptococci, and enterococci.
117
-------
DISCUSSION
SAMPLING
It is evident from the tables and graphs presented in the Results
section that there was a wide variation in the levels of each of the
selected microorganisms for each of the samples collected at each of
the sampling locations. Differences of several orders of magnitude
between the minimum and maximum densities of each microbial group
were observed. This wide variation was not unexpected particularly
in storm runoff. Each sample was a "grab" sample and reflects the
microbial quality of the water at the time the sample was taken.
Betson and Buckingham (4) observed differences of several orders of
magnitude in the levels of indicator bacteria over a span of two minutes.
Factors that will influence the levels of microorganisms in each of
the water samples are numerous and the relationship between each of
these factors are complex. The magnitude and intensity of the rainfall
within each catchment area and the time, magnitude and intensity of
the antecedent storm are parameters associated with each storm event
that will influence the levels of microorganisms. The flow and the
temporal discharge characteristics for a given storm drain will vary
with each storm event and be affected by many factors including the
topography, land use, relative impervious areas, vegetation and type
of soil in the drainage area. In addition, the flow time to a given
observation point, even in a very small catchment, will influence
the magnitude of flow. The source and magnitude of the microbial
flora in the drainage area along with the relative volume of water
conveyed will dramatically influence the levels of microorganisms found.
The drainage area characteristics mentioned above along with the density
of animal populations (including man) and general sanitary conditions
in the area will influence the microbial quality of the runoff. The
mean levels of total and fecal coliforms observed by Geldreich et al.
(5) in rainwater was less than 1/100 ml. Betson and Buckingham (4)
reported the levels of total and fecal coliforms for various sampling
points within a well maintained residential area with sanitary sewers.
A portion of their data is reproduced in Table 24. The rainwater
becomes contaminated at the earth's surface and the degree of contam-
ination varied dramatically with sampling location. The waters col-
lected from roof downspouts and foundations had lower levels of total
and fecal coliforms than any of the samples where the rainwater flowed
over the land. The wide variation in the magnitude of the density of
microorganisms from various sources coupled with the wide variation
in the magnitude of flows from different types of drainage areas and
the infinite permutations and combination of these factors provide some
insight into the nature of the wide variabilities in the densities
of microorganisms observed.
ENUMERATION OF PATHOGENIC MICROORGANISMS
A major objective of this investigation was to provide information
on the levels of selected pathogenic microorganisms in the urban aquatic
environment. The recovery of pathogens from water has been recognized
to be heavily dependent on the methods, techniques and procedures employed.
118
-------
Table 24. LEVELS OF TOTAL AND FECAL COLIFOSMS
AT VARIOUS SITES WITHIN A DRAINAGE AREA.
DATA TAKEN FROM BETSON AND BUCKINGHAM (4)
Sample site
Gage (Q = 0.3 cfs) (8.5 I/sec.)
Foundation and roof drain tile
Street gutter sample below litter pile
Roof downspout - no trees near house
Gage (Q = 1.4 cfs) (39.6 I/sec.)
Roof downspout - trees overhanging roof
Overland flow at curb
Overland flow and gutter flow
Gage (Q = 6.2 cfs) (175.4 I/sec.)
Gage (Q = 3.8 cfs) (107.5 I/sec.)
Gage (Q = 0.3 cfs) (8.5 I/sec.)
Culvert draining street
Roof downspout - trees overhanging
Foundation and roof drain tile
Street gutter near gage (West)
Gage (Q = 0.16 cfs) (4.5 I/sec.)
Time
1156
1207
1208
1224
1229
1234
1250
1258
1303
1323
1749
1753
1800
1802
1806
1807
MPN/100
Total
coliform
510,000
4,500
1,240,000
100
460,000
2,500
360,000
470,000
340,000
360,000
43,000
30,000
<10
1,800
26,000
58,000
ml
Fecal
coliform
7,300
<10
25,000
<10
27,000
740
21,400
58,000
44,000
26,000
8,400
800
<10
10
3,000
18,000
119
-------
Salmonella
Salmonella in water has been a major concern for the last 75
years. The majority of the information in the literature, however,
has been qualitative in nature and data have been reported as frequency
of isolation. Table 25 shows the frequency of detection of Salmonella
at different levels of fecal coliforms in the current study and a com-
parison to similar data reported in the literature. The levels of fecal
coliforms in raw sewage exceeded 2,000/100 ml in each sample, and
Salmonella was isolated in every case. The samples collected and assayed
from an upland reservoir contained low levels of fecal coliforms.
Salmonella was isolated from one of 14 samples. Only three samples taken
from the urban streams had less than 200 fecal coliform/100 ml and
Salmonella was found in each of these samples. At fecal coliform den-
sities of 201 to 2,000 and greater than 2,000/100 ml the frequency
of isolation of Salmonella was 91 and 96%, respectively. The storm
runoff samples had only one sample with less than 200 fecal coliforms/
100 ml and 12 samples with between 201 to 2,000 fecal coliforms/100 ml.
Salmonella was recovered in the low fecal coliform level sample and in
83% of the latter samples. Storm samples with fecal coliform levels
greater than 2,000/100 ml were 95% positive for Salmonella. The overall
Salmonella isolation was 28%, 89% and 96% for the samples with 0-200,
201-2,000 and greater than 2,000 fecal coliforms/100 ml, respectively.
The frequency of Salmonella isolation for all the samples compares
favorably with the fresh water data reported by Geldreich and Van Donsel
(44) but differs significantly from the estuary data reported by these
authors and Brezenski and Russomanno (45).
Recently, limited data on the levels of Salmonella in water have
been reported. Table 26 shows a comparison of the range in the density
of Salmonella reported for various types of surface water to the infor-
mation obtained in the Johns Hopkins study. Each of the procedures
for the enumeration of Salmonella was multiple dilution technique
with a MPN estimate of density. All the data, in Table 26 were corrected
to MPN/10 1 for comparison. Enrichment, plating media and recovery
techniques differed from laboratory to laboratory. The levels of
Salmonella in sewage varied from less than 300 to 1,100,000 Salmonella!
10 1. The ranges observed in the Baltimore sewage are much -lower
than that reported by Cheng et al. (46) but similar in orders of magnitude
to the reports of Kampelmacher and van Noorle Jansen (47), Phirke (48),
and Kenner and Clark (19). The ranges in the levels of Salmonella in
Baltimore sewage significantly overlap the ranges reported by the latter
workers. The urban streams in Baltimore appear to contain lower levels
of Salmonella than the river and creek samples collected by Kenner and
Clark (19). The levels of Salmonella in storm runoff reported by
these authors were similar to the levels observed in Baltimore.. Geldreich
et al. (5) reported 4,500 Salmonella/'100 ml (450,000/10 1) in one storm
sample from a business district but was unable to isolate Salmonella
from other storm samples.
An important aspect of the current study has been the inclusion
of seeded Salmonella controls to evaluate the steps in the recovery
of Salmonella. Table 27 shows the frequency of recovery of the seeded
Salmonella for each sample station. Three distinct controls were per-
formed to evaluate the recovery procedure. A streptomycin resistant
120
-------
Table 25. COMPARISON OF THE FREQUENCY OF DETECTION
OF SALMONELLA WITH THE LEVELS OF FECAL COLIFORMS*
Fecal Coliform
Report
This study
Geldreich &
Van Dons el (44)
Brezenski &
Russomanno (45 )
Sample
raw
sewage
urban
streams
upland
reservoir
storm
runoff
overall
total
fresh
water
estuary
estuary
Range
MPN/ 100ml
0-200
201-2000
>2000
0-200
201-2000
>2000
0-200
201-2000
>2000
0-200
201-2000
>2000
0-200
201-2000
>2000
0-200
201-2000
>2000
0-200
201-2000
>2000
0-200
201-2000
>2000
Number of
samples in
range
0
0
32
3
34
55
14
0
0
1
12
123
18
46
210
29
27
54
258
91
75
34
43
73
Salmonella
Number of
samples
positive
32
3
31
53
1
1
10
117
5
41
202
19
53
33
33
40
45
6
13
43
Percent
positive
100
100
91
96
7
100
83
95
28
89
96
27
70
98
13
44
60
18
30
59
*The frequency of detection of Salmonella with alternative fecal coliform
ranges can be seen in Appendix F.
121
-------
Table 26. COMPARISON OF THE LEVELS OF SALMONELLA
FOUND IN SURFACE WATER AND SEWAGE
# of
Sample samples
Sewage
Sewage
Sewage
Sewage
Sewage
River
Creek
Urban streams
3 C
3
8
17
15
34
8
2
94
Range of
Salmonella
MPN/10 liters
20,000
Reference
Kampelmacher and Van Noorle
Jansen (47), 1970
11,000 to 1,100,000 Cheng &t al. (46), 1971
700 to 25,000
<300 to 150,000
3 to >27,000
150 to >30,000
450 to 1,200
<0.9 to 320
Phirke (48), 1974
Kenner and Clark (19),
This study
Kenner and Clark (19),
Kenner and Clark (19) ,
This study
1974
1974
1974
Storm runoff 2
Storm runoff 140
20 to 150 Kenner and Clark (19), 1974
<0.9 to >11,000 This study
122
-------
Table 27. FREQUENCY OF RECOVERY OF .SEEDED SALMONELLA AFTER
EXPOSURE TO THE SAMPLE, CONCENTRATION ON DIATOMACEOUS
EARTH, AND .ENRICHMENT'AND PRIMARY PLATING
% of the samples positive
Enrichment with
Sample station Exposure a Concentration primary plating
Background
Raw sewage
Herring Run
Jones Falls
Gwynns Falls
Loch Raven
Storm drain
Stoney Run
Glen Ave.
Howard Park
Jones Falls
Bush Street
Northwood
All samples
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
95
95
100
100
99
100
88
88
82
100
79
93
100
79
86
67
87
0
67
17
33
83
'& 5 £ *
0
= '•'?".. I 5 j 1
25
0
0
50
25
30
a Recovery of the seeded Salmonella, after exposure to the sample was
considered positive if less than 90% inactivation was observed.
123
-------
strain of Salmonella typhimur-iim was used as the test organism. Sample
toxicity to the seeded Salmonella was evaluated by exposure of the
Salmonella seed to each sample for the length of time necessary to
process the sample in the laboratory. The recovery of the seeded Sal-
monella after exposure to the sample was considered positive if less
than 90% inactivation was observed. The concentration with diatomaceous
earth for low levels of seeded Salmonella was evaluated by the recovery
of streptomycin resistant Salmonella from seeded replicates of each
sample after filtration. Streptomycin was included in the enrichment
medium to minimize the effect of other microorganisms and favor growth
of the seeded Salmonella. The overall recovery of seeded Salmonella
was evaluated by incorporating an additional seeded replicate and testing
the Salmonella isolated after enrichment and primary plating (no strep-
tomycin) for streptomycin resistance. Recovery of streptomycin resistant
batmoneL-la was considered positive.
Only two storm samples were found to cause more than 90% inacti-
vation of the seeded Salmonella. The test organism was consistently
recovered after exposure to the water samples from the different sources
and indicated that the water samples were not bactericidal to the seeded
Saimonella. After concentration on diatomaceous earth, the seed Sal-
monella was recovered in 67% to 100% of the samples depending on sample
station. The Salmonella seed was recovered in 87% of all samples
This suggests that the diatomaceous earth concentration procedure for
the recovery of low levels of Salmonella from large volumes of water
was effective. After enrichment and primary plating, the recovery of
the seeded Salmonella decreased markedly and was recovered in only 30%
of the samples. The frequency of recovery for the overall culture
procedure varied with the sample site.' In general, the samples with
the higher levels of microorganisms yielded poorer recoveries, and
samples with low levels of microorganisms yielded better recoveries.
The Salmonella seeding experiments conducted simultaneously with
replicates of the background and storm runoff samples provided useful
information to evaluate the Salmonella data presented and to point out
problem areas in the recovery procedures. Essentially no acute bacteri-
cidal effect was observed for the aquatic samples. The concentration
of low levels of Salmonella on diatomaceous earth appears to be a viable
method. The culturing methods, once the bacteria are concentrated,
however, have certain limitations. As a result, the levels of Salmonella
reported in this and probably other studies, are under estimates of the
actual levels. This underscores the need for the development of more
efficient enrichment media.
In sewage there was a noticeable seasonal variation in the levels
of Salmonella with a peak density of 27,000/10 1 in the late summer.
The comparison of the levels of Salmonella in sewage with the incidence
of salmonellosis in Baltimore City is shown in Figure 38. Note the parallel
in peaks in late summer for Salmonella density and incidence of the
disease.
Enteric Viruses
Samples for the assay of enteric viruses were shipped by bus from
Baltimore, Maryland, generally immediately after collection, to Syracuse,
124
-------
5
4
I
0
40
30
20
IO
L06 SALMONELLA/10 liters
NO. SALMONELLOSIS CASES IN WEEK
I.
5S=SS?g^^i
SSiwSi^SaSi
DURING WEEK OF
Jt
oo
i
CD
<0
ro
i
to
CM
CM
CM
IO
CM
I
IO
IO
IO
I
-------
New York. Concentration procedures were initiated as soon as possible.
Trivalent oral poliovaccine thermal controls were included in each
sample to evaluate the eight to ten hour transit time. Irregular re-
coveries and noticeable losses were observed in some of the early samples.
The initial control losses were due to inadequate aeration of the control
samples to remove the chloroform included as a preservative. Traces
of chloroform noticeably reduced the plating efficiency. After correcting
the problem, average recoveries of 84% to 96% of the expected values were
observed and suggested that the shipping procedure had a minimal effect
on the viruses.
In a large sampling study such as this, unusual observations occur
which need further study or some special attention. For example, samples
D8 and D15 (Appendix C. Station D, Gwynns Falls, run no. 9 and no. 15)
appeared to have extraordinarily high titers and a broad spectrum of viruses.
It is possible that samples were obtained when "hot samples were in the
pipe" or that solids with adsorbed viruses had settled near the sampling
point and were leaking viruses. Nevertheless, the distribution of viruses
among nearest neighbors showed that the titers were most probably due
to condensation on lids of the Microtest II plates which spread the inoculum
from low dilutions to high ones. The above two samples were omitted
from the subsequent analysis.
This condensation problem was eliminated by carrying out the inoc-
ulations in a laminar flow hood, placing the lidless plates on sterile
cafeteria trays and covering the first tray with an inverted second
tray. The plates were then incubated in a humidified, five percent
C02 atmosphere.
The level of viruses in raw sewage provides a reasonable means
of comparing the virus data to other reports. Although the physical,
chemical and biological characteristics of raw sewage are quite variable,
the raw sewage samples were more similar than were stream and storm
samples which were highly dependent upon local conditions. Sigh levels
of viruses were obtained in most sewage samples. These were principally
poliovirus and Coxsackievirus B. There were no clear trends toward a
seasonal productivity of either type of enteroviruses. Roughly equal
numbers of Coxsackie and polio isolations were made. It is not clear
from these data whether it Was the output of a generally infected popu-
lation or the yield from a small number of very productive shedders.
The levels of enteroviruses observed here were of the same order of
magnitude of sewage enteroviruses as reported by Dahling et al. (36)
and by Kalter and Millstein (49) . Metcalf eb ail. (50) calculated the
numbers of enteric viruses discharged from two activated sludge type
waste treatment plants in Houston. The largest number of virus isolates
were polioviruses. In the Houston sewage effluents, however, echoviruses
were nearly as frequent as polioviruses and Coxsackievirus B isolations
were very much in the minority. These ratios undoubtedly fluctuate nor-
mally and individual types rise and decline frequently. Sabin polio
strains are artificially maintained by continuing immuinzation programs.
The use of the presumptive analysis allowed rapid identification
of about two-thirds of the samples; the other third (42/130) required
a confirmed test for single plaques from positive isolates. The value
of the confirmed test is shown by the fact that of the 42 presumptive
126
-------
guesses, only 12 were correct. The other 30 guesses failed to predict
some types or indicated others which could not be verified.
In the presumptive test polioviruses are suppressed with IgG and
Coxsackie B viruses with the nonpermissive HEL cells. Ostensibly this
should increase the number of adenovirus isolations. However, only five
samples were found to have DNA viruses with typical adenovirus morphology.
Certainly this must be low and one can conclude that the screening method
and/or the concentrating techniques have failed to identify the wild
adenoviruses. A partial explanation of this failure may be the pH at
which the adsorption-filtration was conducted (pH 4.5). Fields and
Metcalf (43) reported that at pH 4.7, 31% of adenovirus 5 was inactivated,
and at pH 3.5, 39% was lost. The three reovirus isolates probably in-
dicate that the wild reoviruses also underwent a similar degradation
at pH 4.5 (50).
Plaque forming units were almost always lower than predicted by
TCID5Q titrations in presumptive tests. This was not unexpected since
the TCID50 was based on four wells per dilution and thus provides a
large degree of error. The presence of agar and neutral red appears
to suppress plaque formation during primary isolations of many groups
other than enteroviruses. .-£•:£-.».*,•'.•: >.>
Virus isolations were made from the majority of samples :ffom''the
urban streams (Appendix C) during dry weather flows. The TClDsQ • titers
were at minimal levels for detection by this method. Since the 'samples
could not be diluted very far, difficulty with toxic residues was'''exper-
ienced in many samples and this may, in part, explain the instances
where no viruses were recovered. The distribution of virus types re-
sembled the pattern seen with sewage from the Back River Treatment
Plant.
Six stormwater flows were examined. Viruses were isolated from
all of them. For the most part there were few perceptible differences
from the urban streams in the titers, the distribution of types, or in
the number of isolates without viruses. The principal difference between
them is in the fact that the high "bursts" of stormwater viruses were
more frequent than in urban streams and greater in amplitude. It suggests
that storms may have actually flushed sewage solids without large
dilution effects.
Loch Raven reservoir, site E, was included as background infor-
mation on a relatively uncontaminated natural water. Enteroviruses
were found in three of seven samples. An echovirus of unknown serotype
and poliovirus I with vaccine strain genetic markers (d~T~) were identi-
fied. However, the titers were low and the possibility of a laboratory
contamination could explain the occurrence. However, the finding of
virus in the raw water for Baltimore City is not unusual. For example,
Foliguet et al. (51) detected virus in 81% of the raw water in France.
Chang (52) suggested that 30 PFU/1 could be expected in moderately
polluted raw water sources. In this regard, the highest virus concen-
tration in the Loch Raven reservoir was 13 PFU/1 with a mean of all
samples throughout the study of only 6 PFU/1.
127
-------
Since the examination of samples for enterovirus was less exten-
sive than for other pathogens, it must be acknowledged that the presence
of trace levels of virus in the clean waters of the Loch Raven reser-
voir deserve some discussion. The question arises how was it possible
to isolate only one confirmed Salmonella throughout the study, but
on three separate occassions enteroviruses were found? While it is
possible for raw sewage to enter the reservoir through the failure of
a sewage pumping station on the metropolitan sanitary district, no such
failure was known to have occurred. Furthermore, the normal indicator
of pollution gave no suggestion of an unusual entrance of sewage. The
mean total coliform concentration of Loch Raven during the study was
a MPN 26/100 ml.
Rather than to postulate an explanation such as differential decay
rates between viruses and bacteria in several months of storage in the
reservoir, it would be useful to look more closely at the virus recovery
techniques for opportunities for false negatives and positives. This
is supported by the fact that cleaner waters produced almost as many
positive virus isolations as the sewage polluted waters. Table 28
summarizes the recovery of viruses for dirty to clean waters.
To .suggest that the Loch Raven waters contain one virus particle/
1-771 does not seem reasonable in view of the fact that only one
Salmonella/130 1 was isolated. The ratio of virus to Salmonella in
raw sewage was 2 to 1 or 1 virus/10 ml and 1 Salmonella I'19 ml which
seems more reasonable than the 70 to 1 in Loch Raven. It is also difficult
to accept the findings that 100% of the samples contained viruses at
Northwood compared to only 87% in raw sewage. Any conclusions reached
from these data should be tentative and be reserved for future confir-
mation.
Pseudomonas aeyuginosa
No serious difficulties were encountered in the enumeration of
P. aemginosa. It should be emphasized that the calculations of the
MPN were based on a series of biochemical characteristics and not solely
on the growth in asparagine broth and confirmation on acetamide. The
levels of P. aeruginosa observed in sewage and streams were of the same
order of magnitude as those reported by Levin and Cabelli (30) for
sewage and Cabelli et al. (53) in fresh water. The densities in storm-
water were generally 10-fold higher than the urban streams and often
approached and sometimes exceeded the levels of indicator microorganisms.
P. aeruginosa was the most predominant and ubiquitous pathogen observed
in this study. It was found in all sewage and storm samples, in nearly
all stream samples, and in 62% of the samples from Loch Raven reservoir.
Staphylococcus aweus
Serious problems were observed in the enumeration of Staph. aureus.
The conventional media recommended for this pathogen do indeed support
its growth with a particular colony morphology but are not sufficiently
selective for use in water. Many microorganisms not commonly encountered
at relatively high densities in clinical samples will mask the presence
of Staph. aureus in water samples.
128
-------
Table 28. RECOVERY AND LEVEL OF ENTERIC VIRUSES WITH
RESPECT TO THE MEAN LEVELS OF TOTAL COLIFORMS
Virus isolation
Site frequency, %
Raw sewage
Howard Park
(stormwater)
Jones Falls Drain
(stormwater)
Bush Street
(stormwater)
Northwood"--— ---— >*«—
(stormwater)
Western Run
(stormwater)
Jones Falls
(stream)
Gwynns Falls
(stream)
Stoney Run
(stormwater)
Herring Run
(stream)
Loch Raven
(reservoir)
87
100
75
42
..wr.-™*^^*..^^.™^,-, .„,-*-——-<.
100
82
84
67
91
73
43
Virus density
Coliform index
per 100 ml TC/virus ml/virus
2.3 x 107 2.2 x 106 10
1.1 x 106 7.1 x 105 64
4.3 x 105 1.3 x 106 300
3.5 x 105 1.0 x 106 285
„ ,-„.-, .. ,,,.,,--- »«..---~~r— ^— ^— ~ —- • • »-. -* '"•— "•' '
3.4 x 105 6.6 x'105--^itl95
- - - '• i~ * • ; i -
,;.,'. , . :
1.6 x 106 8.0 x 105'. -.-• ;;50^
•'•"••-.;.:. .•;•:•; ; ; •.
4.0 x I0k 5.5 x Wk 138
I C " .*
4.0 x 10^ 2.9 x 105 726
1 It
3.1 x 104 8.5 x 10^ 273
4.9 x 103 1.7 x lO4 345
2.6 x 101 4.6 x 102 1,770
129
-------
The levels of Staph. am>eus presented in this study were MPN members
estimates based on the demonstration of coagulase positive staphylococci.
Staph. aureus is not found in large numbers in water except in swimming
pools (54). The highest levels of Staph. auveus were observed in raw
sewage presumably from the human intestinal tracts, and the bath and
wash waters. Staph. aureus was also observed in the majority of stream
samples at low levels. However, the storm samples contained significantly
higher levels of Staph. auveus than the urban streams. With the exception
of the Northwood station (site M), this pathogen was recovered from 96%
or more of the storm runoff samples.
DISTRIBUTION OF FECAL STREPTOCOCCI
Considerable effort was directed toward enumerating the members
of the fecal streptococcal group to provide an insight into the use-
fulness of this indicator in storm runoff. According to Standard Methods
(16) the fecal streptococci are considered synonymous'with "Lancefield's
Group D Streptococcus" and include S. faecalis, S. faeaium, S. durans
and their varieties or biotypes, S. bovis and S. equinus. S. durans
in this study was considered a variety of S. faeaium. The more restrictive
term enterococcus refers to all of the above species except S. bovis
and S. equinus. These two species of streptococci are believed to be
indicative of animal feces and dieaway rapidly in the aquatic environment.
The l-utuefaeiens and zymogenes biotypes of S. faecalis and atypical
S. faecalis are believed to be ubiquitous and have little sanitary
significance (31). In the heavily contaminated urban aquatic environment
S. faecalis var. liquefaciens and zymogenes were found .in a significant
percentage (30% to 73.5%) of thesamples and support the contention
of their relative ubiquity. However, these varieties were "never observed
to be predominant fecal streptococci in either background or routine
samples. Only an average of 1.3 to 9.8% of the isolates tested belonged
to this subgroup. Atypical S. faecalis was observed as less than 1.6%
of the isolates in from 9% to 23% of the samples.
The percentage of isolates and the frequency of isolation of S.
bovis and S. equinus differed from stream and storm runoff samples.
Approximately 8% of the isolates obtained from the urban streams were
S. bovis and S. equinus and were found in 48 to 72% of the samples.
The isolates from four of the six storm sites had 15 to 17% S. bovis
and S. equinus in 66 to 91% of the samples. The remaining two sites
were just slightly higher in both percent of isolates and frequency
of isolation than the stream samples. The higher levels of S. bovis
and S. equinus in the storm sample suggests a stronger influence of
animal feces on the microbial quality.
Enterococci were the predominant group in the fecal streptococci
isolates. However, high levels of false positive, not fecal streptococci
isolates, were observed in all the samples. Slightly more than 35% of
the isolates from background samples belonged to this group. A noticeable
increase (35% to 42%) in the number of false positive non-fecal strep-
tococci were found in the storm samples.
The occurrence of false positive non-fecal streptococci on KF
medium has been reported. Pavlova et al. (32) found 18.6% of the isolates
130
-------
obtained from food, sewage, and feces to be non-fecal streptococci.
Facklam and Moody (55) indicated that many kinds of streptococci can
grow and give the appropriate reactions on KF medium. Mossel (56)
showed that KF support the growth of Staph. aweeus and Raibaud et al.
(57) reported overgrowth from Lacto'baG'i'LI'i.
The ratio of indicator microorganisms has been employed to provide
some insight into the source of microbial contamination. A firm FC/TC
ratio has been difficult to establish (58). The FC/FS ratio, however,
has been utilized more frequently (31, 59, 60, 61) to determine whether
the pollution was of human or animal origin. The basis for the FC/FS
ratio can be found in the early literature (62, 63, 64). More recent
studies demonstrated that the fecal streptococci were present in
greater numbers than coliform bacteria in the feces of animals (5, 65,
66, 67, 68, 69). In human feces, however, fecal coliforms were found
in greater numbers than fecal streptococci. Geldreich and Kenner (31)
reported that FC/FS ratios for human feces and wastewater were greater
than 4.0 and for animal feces, separate stormwater systems and farm
drainage are less than 0.7. The ratios between 0.7 and 4.0 are diffi-
cult to interpret. The authors also suggested that the FC/FS ratios
should be applied carefully and that the ratios are most meaningful
when the microbial density data are collected at 'outfalls into the stream.
Upon entering the stream the levels of each of the microorganisms may,
be affected by numerous environmental factors and differentialmicrpbial
die-away. They also concluded that the value of the FC/FS ratio for:
stream samples would only be useful during the initial 24 hours;df ; ;;
downstream travel from the point of discharge. Table 29 shows the :
frequency of occurrence of FC/FS ratios at the sample stations in^
Baltimore. The majority of the samples from raw sewage had a FC/FS
ratio of greater than 4.0. However, 12% of the samples had a FC/FS
ratio of less than 1.0. The distribution of the FC/FS ratio in the
urban streams was difficult to interpret. A large percentage of samples
lie in the grey area between animal and human contamination. If FC/*b
ratio above 1.0 is considered to be of human origin, then in 54%, 734,
and 77% of the samples for each of the streams there was a suggestion
of the presence of significant levels of contamination with human fecal
material. The FC/FS ratios in the large majority of the storm samples
were less than 1.0. At the stations representative of combined sanitary
sewage and storm runoff, only 18% and 12% of the samples had FC/FS
ratios greater than 4.0. In fact, 41% and 76% of these samples indicated
animal contamination. In a large portion of storm samples the presence
of human contamination was masked.
The data obtained in the stream and storm samples emphasize the
difficulties with the application of FC/FS ratio. The flow times from
the points of contamination to the points of observation for the urban_
streams in this study are well within the 24 hours suggested by Geldreich
and Kenner (31). This was also the case for the storm drains, although
it was impossible to evaluate the time between the deposition of animal
feces and their incorporation into the storm runoff. Interpretation
of the FC/FS ratio less than 4.0 leave much to be desired. Too many
factors will influence the densities of fecal coliform and fecal strep-
tococci. The magnitude of these densities along with the volume of water
which carries the contamination, combined with the numerous environmental
factors that will affect the levels of these microorganisms, make the
131
-------
Table 29. FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF THE
FC/FS RATIO AT EACH SAMPLE STATION
Sample station
Less than
1.0
Ratio FC/FS
1.0 to 4.0
Greater than
4.0
Background Samples
A Raw sewage 12
B Herring Run
(stream) 46
C Jones Falls
(stream) 27
D Gwynns Falls
(stream) 33
E Loch Raven reservoir ID
27
34
31
45
ID
61
20
42
22
ID
Storm Samples
F Stoney Run
(storm runoff) 82
G Glen Avenue
(storm runoff) 89
H Howard Park
(combined sewage) 41
K Jones Falls storm drain
(combined sewage) 76
L Bush Street
(storm runoff) 81
M Northwood
(storm runoff) 92
12
41
12
13
18
12
132
-------
useful application of the FC/FS ratio difficult in the urban environment.
The determination of these microorganisms and the calculation of the
FC/FS ratio for a storm outfall or a stream must be recognized to be
the net result of an innumerable number of contamination events of
variable sources and magnitudes and the effects of many different localized
environmental conditions that alter the microbial populations. Effectively,
the presence of human contamination may be obscured. The FC/FS ratio
was not intended nor should it be employed as a "magic number" to
evaluate the source of contamination in a complex system.
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INDICATOR AND PATHOGENIC MICROORGANISMS
The evaluation of the naturally occurring relationships between
indicator and pathogenic microorganisms in the urban aquatic environ-
ment was an important objective of the present study. The correlations
for the levels of total coliform, fecal coliform, fecal streptococci
and enterococci and bacterial pathogens were highly significant at
the 1% level when all of the samples and the background samples were
considered. However, little or no correlations were found between
indicator and pathogenic bacteria in the storm and stream samples.
In each case where significant correlations were observed, large numbers
of samples, raw sewage and reservoir samples were considered. — -The
raw sewage samples contained relatively high levels and the reservoir
samples contained very low levels of indicator and pathogenic bacteria.
The latter two samples play a large role in defining the regression
line. Despite the variability observed, the levels of microorganisms
at a given sample station were surprisingly similar. A large majority
of the samples were found in a one to two log range. It should be
stressed that most of the microbial assays were MPN estimates of the
bacterial densities. The 95% confidence interval for a five place
multiple tube procedure span almost a factor of ten around the MPN.
Whether the lack of correlation between indicator and pathogen simply
reflects the poor precision for the MPN or that the indicators are
less meaningful in these samples remains to be determined.
Significant correlations at the 95% level were observed between
the levels of enteric viruses and total coliform and fecal coliform
in the background samples. No significant correlation was observed
when all the samples, or the storm and stream samples were considered
separately. Negative correlations, although not .significant, were
often observed for the storm samples. The uniformly poor bacterial
indicator-virus correlation may be explained by 1) the smaller number
of samples assayed, 2) the different response between virus and bacteria
to the environment, 3) the difference in survival, and 4) the
difficulties associated with concentration, recovery and assay of low
levels of virus.
Despite the poor correlations between indicator and pathogens
observed for several sample categories, the overall ratio of pathogen
to indicator provides a useful tool to evaluate the relative order of
magnitude of the presence of these microorganisms. The ratio of pathogen
to indicator varied considerably from sewage to clean water. The overall
ratios obtained in this study are given in Table 30. P. aeruginosa
was so abundant, either in fact or through multiplication in the field,
133
-------
Table 30. OVERALL RATIO OF PATHOGENS
TO INDICATOR MICROORGANISMS
Microorganisms
P. a&ruginosa
P. aerug-i-nosa
P. a&puginosa
P. a&Tuginosa
Staph. awceus
Staph. aweus
Staph. awceus
Staph. aureus
Salmonella
Salmonella
Salmonella
Salmonella
Enteric virus
Enteric virus
Enteric virus
Enteric virus
to TC
to FC
to FS
to ENT.
to TC
to FC
to FS
to ENT.
to TC
to FC
to FS
to ENT.
to TC
to FC
to FS
to ENT.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Ratio
: 45
: 14
: 18
: 5
: 4,780
: 1,410
: 2,000
: 630
: 141,000
: 105,000
: 147,000
: 45,500
: 151,000
: 50,000
: 85,500
: 40,700
134
-------
that the levels of common indicators of pollution were only an order of
magnitude greater than this pathogen. Staph. aweeus* however, was less
abundant and Salmonella sp. and enteric virus almost rare compared to
the indicator microorganism.
QUALITY OF URBAN SURFACE WATERS
It has been shown from results of the study that the water quality
of the urban streams based on detailed examination of the levels of
pathogens and indicators of pollution was uniformly poor. The recovery
of pathogenic bacteria and viruses was accomplished in almost every
sample examined throughout the period of study. Only three samples out
of 92 taken from the urban streams met the 200 fecal coliform MPN/100 ml
for recreational water use (National Technical Advisory Council Standard,
NTAC) (70). The mean fecal coliform density was, in fact, in the order
of 6,000/100 ml with a range of 200 to 2.4 million MPN/100 ml, and this
certainly is not an acceptable quality for water contact recreation.
The levels of microorganisms in the urban streams was independent of
season, flow and the number of days since the last rainfall. This
apparent independence, relative to factors that have been repeatedly
demonstrated to have an effect on the microbial quality, was not surprising.
It has been long recognized that the seaspnal variation and effect of
rainfall on the bacterial quality of surface waters are dependent on
the overall condition of the stream. Kisskalt (71) in 1906 compared
the seasonal fluctuations in the levels of bacteria in a good,,quality
and a highly polluted stream. In the clean stream the levels "of bacteria
were highest during periods of rain or high water. In the highly polluted
stream the levels of bacteria_were hJLgher^ durmg per^dj_^f^J:p^,fj£W.
Frost ^nd''street^r"T7"2) "'in 1924 reported little seasonal fluctuations
in the level of bacteria in the Ohio River below Cincinnati. They
concluded that the normal fluctuations in the bacterial count were masked
by the effect of the pollution from the city. The consistently high
levels of indicator microorganisms, routine recovery of pathogenic
bacteria and enteric viruses, and the absence of normal fluctuation
levels of microorganisms suggest a high level of continuous pollution.
Although the identification of the sources of contamination within an
urban environment were well beyond the scope of the present investigation,
it is difficult to conceive of any other source but raw sewage that
would possess the necessary magnitude of microbial content and continuous
presence to yield the observed data for the urban streams.
HEALTH HAZARD
It has been hypothesized that an urban area supplied with separate
sewer systems for stormwater and for sanitary sewage will have cleaner,
less hazardous, urban streams than those with combined systems. There
is no doubt that the hypothesis is supported where properly constructed
separate sewer systems are provided in new towns and subdivisions where
none of the defects of age, overloading and poor maintenance has appeared.
The area for study is believed to represent a rather typical old,
central city with a growing suburban belt, a situation shared by metro-
politan areas throughout the United States. The study area, unlike
many along the Eastern seaboard, is primarily one of separate sewers
135
-------
and open channels for the convenience of storm runoff through existing
and proposed recreational areas. The population's contact with the urban
streams is heavy and will increase as playgrounds and parks are extended
in the future. An important aspect of assessing the public health
threat from contact with these urban streams is the density of pathogens
recovered as was summarized in Tables 19 and 23.
Pseudomonas aerug-Lnosa was the most abundant pathogen in all the
streams. The mean MPN/100 ml was 1 x 103 with a range from 3 x 10°
to 3.5 x 10 . This secondary pathogen is of interest because of its
association with eye and ear infections, its resistance to antibiotics
and proclivity for invading individuals in debilitated states. Infections
with P. aevug-inosa are the most dreaded, second only to antibiotic
resistant strains of streptococcus. The organism is rather ubiquitous
and is known to be discharged in the feces. Among other organisms
proposed as possible indicators of recreational water quality, P.
aeruginosa has the advantage of allegedly being of human rather than
of animal origin (73). The city sewage had relatively large numbers
of P. aevuginosa averaging 2.2 x 105/100 ml as compared to an average
of 7.0 x 106 fecal coliform/100 ml (1:32). However, there were numerous
samples which gave a P. qeTug-Lnosa MPN equal to or in excess of the
fecal coliform MPN. This had be'en found in other studies and were
attributed to possible multiplication under natural conditions. This
may be an explanation for the peak numbers of P. aevugi-nosa at all
study sites during the late summer months when water temperatures were
in the 18-26?C range and stream flows were low. Should this, in fact,
be the characteristics of this pathogen, its usefullness as a recreational
water quality indicator is limited. The least square fit of fresh and
estuarine water data reported by Cabelli et at. (53) gave 12 P. aevu-
ginosa MPN/100 ml at the National Technical Advisory Council suggested
standard of 200 FC/100 ml, whereas, the stormwater in this study gave
63/100 ml. In both instances the data were quite variable. The inability
of past studies to show any relationship between levels of P. aevugi-nosa
in bathing waters and ear infections weakens the public health concern
for the abundance of the organism in urban streams. It must be cautioned,
however, that the urban runoff studied had concentrations two orders
of magnitude higher than values observed in bathing beach studies.
The skin which is exposed to the external environment provides
an environment for a variety of microorganisms. Staph. aureus, the
coagulase-positive organism, is an important human pathogen and is
responsible for a wide spectrum of clinical diseases. Usually boils,
carbuncles, abscesses, and impetigo are the common skin leasions seen.
Obviously, staphlococcal infections may develop anywhere since the
organism is indigenous on the skin. Direct contact with infected in-
dividuals are the most important sources and asymptomatic staphylococcal
carriers and air play very minor roles. However, prolonged contact
with water carrying concentrations of a wide variety of Staph. auveus
strains, some antibiotic resistant or highly virulent, could be an impor-
tant factor in the infection of cuts and abrasions acquired while playing
in the urban streams. The presence of Stapkyloooooi, in raw sewage is
believed to be primarily contributed by the bath and laundry waters
and had a mean concentration of 820 MPN/100 ml with a maximum of 4,600
to a minimum of 42/100 ml. In the urban streams the concentrations
of StaphyloooGci. were not impressively high. The mean concentration
136
-------
was 5 MPN/100 ml with a minimum of less than 1 and a maximum 93/100 ml.
At the NTAC suggested standard of 200 FC/100 ml the calculated concen-
tration of Staph. aux>eus was 2.25/100 ml. Unfortunately, little infor-
mation is available to correlate the degree of risk associated with the
levels of Staph. aureus in the water.
The primary human enteric disease-producing bacterial agents
associated with the ingestion of water are: Salmonella typhi (typhoid
fever), Salmonella pavatyphi-A (paratyphoid fever), Salmonella species
(salmonellosis), Skigella species (bacillary dysentery) and cholera.
Today all of these organisms but Salmonella and Shigella are epidemic-
logical curiosities having been brought under control by environmental
sanitation practices and maintenance.
The assessment of the potential health hazard from the Salmonella-
Shigella organisms in the urban waterways will depend upon the numbers
of organisms ingested, the virulence of the bacterial strain, the
susceptability of genetically heterogenous human populations, the age
and physiological state of individuals, the multiplicity of factors
affecting the immunity of the host, and the interaction of the pathogen
with the microbial flora and food in the gastroin^Xi^3^^§J^^,l!P=Tr=-~-^^-
MacKenzie and Livingstone (74) indicated that the Salmonella- ^... .
infecting dose vafies with susceptibility, and is smaller for infants
and the aged. Species and strain differences gave different-level!:?
of organisms to produce clinical illness. In healthy adult.volunteers
fed experimental dosages, the minimal numbers causing symptoms.varied
enormously from 10s to 109 cells. Comparable data for typhoid fever
(75) showed that a dose of 103 organisms produced no disease, whereas,
105 typhoid bacteria resulted in illness of 28% of persons exposed.
The estimated typhoid LD50 (76) was placed at 107 organisms. In/general
it was stated:
"There are so many gaps in our understanding of the
infectivity of Salmonellae that it is not possible
to give any reliable figure for the infecting dose
in man".
In any case, the number of Salmonella required to be ingested is re-
latively large compared to the evidence regarding Sh-igella as shown
below:
Infective Dose of Enteric Pathogens
Shigella . . 101 to 10 2
Salmonella 10
Escherisdh-La coli 10
cholefae 108
In the urban streams the mean Salmonella density was low with a
MPN of 8.7/10 1 (8.7 x 10~2 MPN/100 ml). The minimum was less than
1/10 1 and a maximum of 320/10 1. At the NTAC suggested standard of
200 FC/100 ml the most probable number of Salmonella was 5.8/10 1.
If this water is consumed at the maximum possible intake per day of
2 I/capita, the number of Salmonella ingested at the worst condition
137
-------
(32/1) would be only 64 organisms. Thus, the salmonellosis health hazard
in water contact with urban streams is believed to be small. 'The density
of Salmonella in stormwater exceeded 10,000/10 1 in only one case. If
we use a value of 10,000 Salmonella /10 1 for a similar calculation, the
number of Salmonella ingested per day would be 2,000 organisms and is
still more than a factor of 10 lower than the infective dose listed above.
This coupled with the highly unlikely event of consuming 2 liters of
stormwater make the health hazard also small.
Shigellosis, on the other hand, may present a problem because for
reasons already discussed in the section under analytical methods. There
is every reason to believe that Shigella sp. are consistently present in
the sewage and in the urban runoff. The reported, cases of shigellosis in
the city peak at the same late summer period as salmonellosis but are only
0.7 of the reported cases of the latter. The degree of health hazard cannot
be verified until methods for the isolation and enumeration of Shigella
under varying environmental conditions have been accomplished. The Dubuque,
Iowa episode (77) where the transmission of shigellosis by swimming in a
contaminated river supports this concern. The study revealed a mean FC
MPN/100 ml, of 17,500 in samples of water in the swimming area. This is
greatly in excess of the NTAC suggested standard of 200 FC/100 ml. S.
sonne-i was isolated from a sample of the river water containing 400 FC/100
ml. While the density of Shigella organisms per unit volume was not
determined, the role of this pathogen could be a hazard in view of the
evidence of fecal contamination.
The exact quantity of jmteroviruses which must be ingested to produce
injurious infections is not Known. Poliovirus infection by the oral route
has been studied and Sabin (78) reported that non-human primates and man
did not have comparable susceptibility. He reported that if fewer than
10 tissue culture doses of vaccine poliovirus were ingested by a human,
the virus would bypass the pharynx but infect the intestines. If only one
poliovirus particle ordinarily infected a cell, thousands of virus units
must be defective. The literature is contradictory in this regard since
some claim that a much lower concentration can infect children, while
others feel that more than 104 tissue culture doses of vaccine are needed
to infect infants (79). Despite this, the authors of several reviews of
the problem of viral minimal infective dose (MID) (80,81,82,83) have
generally arrived at the conclusion that one tissue culture infective dose
(TCID50) correlates well with one MID for a broad spectrum of viruses.
This principle applies to both water and airborne infections (80) and is
based not only on work with experimental animals but administration of
viruses to humans as well. It is particularly germane to this discussion
that these observations on MID included human viruses such as polioviruses
1 and 3 (84,81), coxsackievirus A21 (85), coxsackievirus B4 (86), rhino-
virus (80) and adenovirus (80).
138
-------
Admittedly the viruses achieved their high degree of efficiency
after careful instillation of the inoculum under optimal conditions with
minimum interference from environmental factors and host resistance
factors. Nevertheless the potential for establishing the infection
warrants concern. It should be noted that infection does not always lead
to overt disease.
Whether or not this potential will be realized is largely a matter
of probability and frequency of contact. If enough of a polluted water
supply is consumed, infections are inevitable. It probably makes no
difference whether it is small amounts consumed by numerous individuals
or larger quantities consumed by fewer persons. One simply cannot destroy
viral infectivity by diluting the viruses.
In contrast to this, a rather large number of viable cells of bacterial
pathogens must be consumed by a single host to establish an infection. In
a very dilute suspension it is impossible to consume enough quantities to
establish the infective dose. A comparison of the bacterial and viral
health hazards involve unknown factors such as the influence of particle
aggregations. Thus, even though the infective agents are diluted to low
levels, the occurrence of clusters of virions or microbial cells may defeat
protection offered by the average low concentration. -£, osi £J-'T = --.
•• - o. r. fj rl^ -^ i i" i^lt '
Goldfield in ,1976 (87) reviewed the epidemiological evidence for ^the
transmission of virus diseases by the water route. He concluded , ^similar ,
to Mosely in 1965 (88), that the demonstrated health hazard bf -.viruses 'in
water has been limited to an occasional outbreak of infectious he^atitus
associated with the direct consumption of contaminated water and 'raw ^ "
shellfish, a rare occurrence of poliomyelitis, and adenovirus infection
associated with swimming pools. At present, the etiology of acute infec-
tious non-bacterial (viral) gastroenteritis remains unclear. Thus, even
though viruses are detected at low levels in urban waterways and storm
runoff, and the minimum infective dose may be small, the epidemiological
information at present indicates that the threat to health is low.
139
-------
REFERENCES
1. Waring, G.E., Jr. The Sanitary Drainage of Houses and Towns. The
Atlantic Monthly. 24:339, 1875.
2. Herring R. Report to the National Board of Health on European Methods
of Sewerage and Sewage Disposal. 1881.
3. Study and Assessment of the Capabilities and Cost of Technology for
Control of Pollutant Discharges from Urban Runoff. National Com-
mission on Water Quality. Washington, D.C., 1975.
4. Betson, R.P. and R.A. Buckingham. Fecal Coliform Concentrations in
Stormwater. Tennessee Valley Authority. Knoxville, TN, 1969.
5. Geldreich, E.E., et al. The Bacteriological Aspects of Stormwater
Pollution. J. Water Pollut. Control Fed. 40:1861, 1968.
6. Kunkel, S.G. Concentrations and Cycles of Bacterial Indicators in
Farm Surface Runoff. Presented at Cornell Agricultural Waste Management
Conference. Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., 1970.
7. Burm, R.J. and R.D. Vaughn. Bacteriological Comparison Between Combined
and Separate Sewer Discharges in Southeastern Michigan. J. Water Pollut.
Control Fed. 38:400, 1966.
8. Weibel, S.R., R.J. Anderson, and R.L. Woodward. Urban Land Runoff
as a Factor in Stream Pollution. J. Water Pollut. Control Fed. 36:914, 1964.
9. Whitman, I.L. Uses of Small Urban River Valleys. PhD dissertation, The
Johns Hopkins University. Baltimore, MD, p. 299.
10. Ewing, W.H., B.R. Davis, and R.W. Reavis. Phenylalanine and Malonate Media
and Their Use in Enteric Bacteriology. Public Health Lab. 15:153-167, 1957.
11. Edwards, P.R. and W.H. Ewing. Identification of Enterobacterlaceae. Burgess
Publishing Co. Minneapolis, MN, 1972.
12. Esber, R.J. and R.J. Faulconer. A Medium for Initial Visual Demonstration
of Production of Coagulase and Fermentation of Mannitol by Pathogenic Staphylo-
cocci. Technical Bull, of the 'Registry of Medical Tech. 29(7):108-110, 1959.
13. Streitfeld, M.M., E.M. Hoffman, and H.M. Janklow. Evaluation of Extracellular
Deoxyribonuclease Activity in Pseudomonas. J. Bacterial. 84:77-80, 1962.
14. Gunn, B.A., W.E. Dunkelberg, Jr., and J.R. Creitz. Clinical Evaluation of
2% LSM Medium for Primary Isolation and Identification of Staphylococci. Am.
J, CUn. Path. 57:236-240, 1972.
15. Evans, J.B. and W.E. Kloos, Use of Shake Cultures in a Semisolid Thiogylocolate
Medium for Differentiating Staphylococci from Micrococci. Appl. Mlaroblol.
23, 1972.
140
-------
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. Thirteenth
Edition. American Public Health Association, Inc., 1971.
Rhodes, M.E. The Characterization of Pseudomonas fluorescens. J. Gen.
Microbiol. 21:221-263, 1959.
Brodsky, M.H. and M.C. Nixon. Membrane Filter Method for the Isolation
and Enumeration of Pseudomonas aeruginosa from Swimming Pools. Appl.
Microbiol. 938-943, 1973.
Kenner, B.A. and H.F. Clark. Detection and Enumeration of Salmonella
and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. J. Water Pollut. Control Fed. 46:2163,
1974.
Hentges, D.J. Inhibition of ShLgella flexneri by the Normal Intestinal
Flora. II Mechanism of Inhibition by Coliform Organisms. J. Bacterial.
97:513, 1969.
Andre, D.A., H.H. Weiser, and G.W. Malaney. Survival of Enteric Pathogens
in Farm Pond Water. J. Am. Water Works Assoc. 59:503, 1967. ,
McFeters, G.A., G.K. Bissonnette, J.J. Jezeski, C.A. Thomson,'[and T>.G.
Stuart. Comparative Survival of Indicator Bacteria and Enteric'Pathogens
in Well Water. Appl. Microbiol. 27:823, 1973. , , ^ r
Bartos, D., J. Bansagi, and K. Bakas. Survival Time of Enteric"Pathogenic
Bacteria in Well Water, Zeits. Hyg. Infektkr. 127:347, 1947.
DolivorDobrovol'skii, L.B. and V.S. Rossovskaia. Survival of Shigella
dysenteriae in Water Supply. Gig-Lena i Sanit. 21:52, 1956.
Geldreich, E.E. Water-Borne Pathogens in Water Pollution Microbiology.
Edited by R. Mitchell, John Wiley and Sons, Inc. New York, 1972.
Smuckler,- S.A. and M.D. Appleman. Improved Staphylococcus Medium No. 110.
Appl. Microbiol. 12(4):355-359, 1964.
Morton, H.E. and J. Cohn. Coagulase and Desoxyribonuclease^Activities of
Staphylococci Isolated from Clinical Sources. Appl. Microbiol. 23:725,
1972.
Drake, C.H. Evaluation of Culture Media for the Isolation and Enumeration
of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Health Lab. Sci. 3:10, 1966.
Brodsky, M.H. and M.C. Nixon. Rapid Method for Detection of Pseudomonas
aeruginosa on MacConkey Agar Under Ultraviolet Light. Appl. Microbiol.
26(2):219-220, 1973.
Levin, M.A. and V.J. Cabelli. Membrane Filter Technique for Enumeration
of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Appl. Microbiol. 24:864-870, 1972.
Geldreich, E.E, and B.A. Kenner. Concepts of Fecal Streptococci in
Stream Pollution. J. Water Pollut. Control Fed. 41:336-352, 1969.
141
-------
32. Pavlova, M.T., F.T. Brezenski, and W. Litsky. Evaluation of Various Media
for Isolation, Enumeration and Identification of Fecal Streptococci from
Natural Sources. Health Lab. Sol. 9:289-297, 1972.
33. Hartman, P.A., G.W. Reinbold and D.S. Saraswat. Media and Methods for
Isolation and Enumeration of the Enterococci. Advances in Applied Mlcroblol.
Edited by W.W, Umbreit, Academic Press. New York, 8:253, 1966.
34. Kenner, B.A,, H.P, Clark, and P.W. Kabler. Fecal Streptococci (1) Culti-
vation and Enumeration of Streptococci in Surface Waters. Appl. Mlcroblol.
9tl5, 1961.
35. Dahling, D.R. Personal communication. 1975.
36. Dahling, D.R., G. Berg and D. Berman. BGM, A Continuous Cell Line More
Sensitive than Primary Rhesus and African Green Kidney Cells for the Re-
covery of Virusus from Water. Health Lab. Sol. 11:275-282, 1974.
37. Soriano, F. and J.D. Cherry. Modified Procedure for the Microscopic
and Macroscopic Study of Viral Plaques. Appl. Mlcroblol. 15:243-244, 1967.
38. Fujita, N., M. Tamura, and S. Hotta. Dengue Virus Plaque Formation on
Microplate Cultures and Its Application to Virus Neutralization. Proa, of
the Society for Experimental Blol. and Med. 148:472-475, 1975.
39. Conrath, T.B. Handbook of Mlcrotlter Procedures. Dynatech Corporation.
Cambridge, Mass., pp. 430-463, 1972.
40. Merchant, D.J. Handbook of Cell and Organ Culture. Burgess Publishing
Co., Minneapolis, Minn., p. 182, 1960.
41. Hsiung, G.D. Diagnostic Virology ("Revised). Yale Univ. Press. New Haven,
1973.
42. Metcalf, T.G., C. Wallis, and J.L. Melnick. Environmental Factors Influencing
Isolation of Enterovirus from Polluted Surface Waters. Appl. Mlcroblol.
27:920-926, 1974.
43. Fields, H.A. and T.G. Metcalf. Concentration of Adenovirus from Seawater.
Water Res. (G.B.) 9:357-364, 1975.
44. Geldreich, E.E. and D.J. Van Donsel. Salmonellae in Fresh Water Pollution
in Proc. National Specialty Conference on Disinfection. American Society
of Civil Engineers. New York, 1970.
45. Brezenski, F.T. and R. Russomanno. The Detection and Use of Salmonella
±n Studying Polluted Tidal- Estuaries, J. Water P0llut* Control Fed. 41:725,
1969,
46. Cheng, C.M., W.C. Boyle and J.M. Goepfert. Rapid Quantitative Method for
Salmonella Detection in Polluted Waters. Appl. Mlcroblol. 21:662, 1971.
47. Kampelmacher, E.H. and L.M. van Noorle Jansen. Salmonella - Its Presence
in and Removal from a Wastewater System. J. Water Pollut. Control Fed.
42:2069-2073, 1970.
142
-------
48. Phirke, P.M. Elevated Temperature Technique for the Enumeration of Salmonella
in Sewage. Indian J. Med. Res. 62:938, 1974. ,
49. Kalter, S.S, and C.H. Millstein. Efficacy of Methods for the Determination
of Viruses in Treated and Untreated Sewage. In Virus Survival in Water and
Wastewater Systems. Edited by J.F. Malina, Jr. and B.P. Sagik. University
of Texas, Austin, TX. pp. 33-44, 1974.
50. Metcalf, T.G., C. Wallis and J.L. Melnick. Virus Enumeration and Public
Health Assessments in Polluted Surface Waters. In Virus Survival in Water
and Wastewater Systems. Edited by J.F. Malina, Jr. and B.P. Sagik. Uni-
versity of Texas, Austin TX. pp. 57-70, 1974.
51, Foliguet, J.M. L. Schwartzbrod, and O.G. Gaudin. La Pollution Virale des
Eaux Usees, de Surface et d'Alimentation. Bull. World Health Organization.
35:737-749, 1966.
52. Chang, S.L. Waterborne Viral Infection and Their Prevention. Bull. World
Health Organization. 38:401-414, 1968.
53. Cabelli, V.J., H. Kennedy, and M.A. Levin. Pseudomonas aeruginosa -
Fecal Coliform Relationships in Estuarine and Fresh Recreational,,, Waters.
J, Water Pollut. Control Fed. 48:367-376, 1976. .— '/
54. Evans, J,B, Coagulase Positive Staphylococci as Indicators of"Potential
Health Hazards from Water. Presented at ASTM International Symposium on
Bacterial Indicators of Potential Health Hazards Associated with: Water.
L^lSZ6^_m___,______
55. Facklam, R, and M.D. Moody. Presumptive Identification of Group D. Strepto-
cocci: The Bile-Esculin Test. Appl, Microbiol. 20:245-251, 1970.
56. Mossel, D.A.A. Essentials of the Assessment of the Hygienic Condition of
Food Factories and Their Products. J. Soi. Food Agr. 15:349-362, 1964.
57. Raibaud, P., M. Caulet, J.V. Galpin and G. Mocquot. Studies on the Bacterial
Flora of the Alimentary Tract of Pigs. II. Streptococci. Selective Enumera-
tion and Differentiation of the Dominant Group. J. Appl. Bacterial. 24:
285-306, 1961.
58. Geldreich, E.E. Applying Bacteriological Parameters to Recreational Water
Quality. J. Am. Water Works Assoc. 62:113-120, 1970.
59. Geldreich, E.E. Buffalo Lake Recreational Water Quality: A Study in
Bacteriological Data Interpretation. Water Res. 6:913-924, 1972.
60. Feachin, R. Fecal Coliforms and Fecal Streptococci in.Streams in the
New Guinea Highlands. Water Res. 8:367-374, 1974.
61. Skinner, Q.D., J.C. Adams, P.A. Rechard and A.A. Beetle. Effect of
Summer Use of a Mountain Watershed on Bacterial Water Quality. J. Environ.
Quality. 3:329-335, 1974.
143
-------
62. Houston, A.C. On the Value of Examination of Water for Streptococci and
Staphylococci with a View to Detection of Its Recent Contamination with
Animal Organic Matter. Supplement 29th Annual Report Local Government
Board Containing Report of Medical Officer 1899-1900. London County
Council, England, 458, 1900.
63. Winslow, C.E. and M.P. Hunnewell. Streptococci Characteristics of Sewage
and Sewage-Polluted Waters. Science. 15, 827, 1902.
64. Winslow, C.E. and G.T. Palmer. A Comparative Study of Intestinal Strepto-
cocci from the Horse, the Cow and Man. J. Infectious Diseases. 7,1, 1910.
65. Cooper, K.E. and F.M. Ramadan. Studies in the Differentiation between
Human and Animal Pollution by Means of Faecal Streptococci. J. Gen.
Microbiol. 12, 180, 1955.
66. Hartley, C.H. and L.W. Slanetz. Types and Sanitary Significance of Fecal
Streptococci Isolated from Feces, Sewage and Water. Am. J. Pub. Health.
50, 1545, 1960.
• 67. Kenner$Bi A., H.F. Clark -and P.£~.» Kabl@r. Fecal- Streptjrijsocjei-. II.
Quantification of Streptococci in Feces. Am. J. Public Health. 50, 1545,
1960.
68. Mundt, J.O. Occurenc"e of Eiteroflaccifin Animals in the Wild Environment.
Appl. Microbiol. 11, 136, 1963.
69. Rogers, C.G. and W.B. Sarles. Isolation and Identification of Enterococci
from the Intestinal Tract of the Rat. J. Bacterial. 88, 965, 1964.
70. National Technical Advisory Council Report. "Water Quality Criteria".
Fed. Water Poll. Control Admin. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 1968.
71. Kisskalt, X. Die Verunreinigung der Lahn un der Wieseck durch die AbWasser
der Stadt Geissen, mit Besonderen Berucksichtigung der Brauchbarkeit der
Ublichen Methoden zur Untersuchung von Flussverunreinigungen. Zeitschrift
fur Hygiene. 53:305, 1906.
72. Frost, W.H. and H.W. Streeter. A Study of the Pollution and Natural Puri-
fication of the Ohio River. II. Report on Surveys and Laboratory Studies
Sec. IV. Bacteriological Studies. Public Health Bulletin 143. Treasury
Dept., U.S. Public Health Service, 1924.
73. Hoadley, A.W. On the Significance of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in Surface
Waters. J. New Eng. Water Works Assoc. 83:99, 1968
74. MacKenzie, C.R. and D.J. Livingstone. Salmonella in Fish and Food. S.
Afr. Med. J. 42:999-1003, 1968.
75. Dupont, H.L. and R.B. Hornick. Clinical Approach to Infectious Diarrheas.
Medicine. 52(4) :265, 1973.
76. Datta, N., R.B. Pridie, and E.S. Anderson. An Outbreak of Infection with S.
typhimurium in a General Hospital. J. Hyg. 58:229-241, 1960.
144
-------
77. Rosenberg, M.S., J.G. Wells, M.H. Merson and E.J. Gangarosa. Transmission
of Shigellosis by Swimming in a Contaminated River. Public Health Service,
CDC, Atlanta. EPI-75-18-2, March 1975.
78. Sabin, A.B. Properties of Attenuated Polioviruses and their Behavior in
Human Beings. In Cellular Biology Nuoleia Aoids and Viruses. New York
Academy of Science. 5:113-127, 1957.
79. Horstman D.M. Factors Affecting Optimum Dosage Levels of Live Polio-
virus Vaccine in Poliomyelitis: 5th International Conference,
Copenhagen, Denmark, p. 304-310, 1961.
80. Westwood, J.C.N. and S.A. Sattar. The Minimal Infective Dose. In
Viruses in Water3 Edited by G. Berg, H.L. Bodily, E.H. Lennette,
J.L. Melnick and T.G. Metcalf. American Public Health Association,
Inc., p.61-69, 1976.
81. Plotkin, S.A. and M. Katz. Minimal Infective Doses for Man by the Oral
Route. In Transmission of Viruses by the Water Route3 Edited by
G. Berg. Interscience, N.Y., p. 151-166, 1967.
82. Taylor, F.B. Viruses - What is Their Significance in Water Supply?'•
J, Am. Water Works Assoo.3 66:306, 1974. >j'
83. Beard, J.W. Host-Virus Interactions in the Initiation of Irifectibif.;'
In Transmission of Viruses by the Water Route, Edited by-G.~B%rg.--';
Interscience, N.Y., p. 167-192, 1967.
84. Koprowski, H.J. Immunization Against Poliomyelitis With Living
Attenuated Virus. Am. J, Trap. Med. Eyg. 5:440-452, 1956.
85. Couch, R.B., T.R. Cote, P.J. Gerone, W.F. Fleet, D.J. Lang, W.R.
Griffith and V. Knight. Production of Illness With a Small-Particle
Aerosol of Coxsackie A21. J. Clin. Invest.- 44:535-542, 1965.
86. Suptel, E.A. Pathogenesis of Experimental Coxsackie Virus Infection.
Aata Virol. 7:61-66, 1963.
87.
Goldfield, M. Epidemiological Indicators For Transmission of Viruses
by Water. In Viruses in Water3 Edited by G. Berg, H.L. Bodily, E.H.
Lennette, J.L. Melnick and T.G. Metcalf. American Public Health
Association Inc., 1976.
88.
Mosley, J.W., Transmission of Viral Diseases by Drinking Water.
Transmission of Viruses by the Water Route. Edited by G. Berg.
Interscience, N.Y., p. 5-23, 1967.
In
145
-------
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A. Daily Precipitation in Inches at the Customs House (CH),
Woodbourne (W) and Ashburton (A) in Baltimore City from September 1,
1974 to September 30, 1975.
Daily Precipitation (inches)
September 1974 October 1974
Day
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
W
0
0
0.55
0
.0
1.40
0.60
0
, _o
;o
0
0
0.75
0.10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.45
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.50
0
0
Site
A
0
0
0
0
0
1.65
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.45
0.20
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.25
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.65
0
0
CH
0.04
0.08
1.04
0.02
0
1.53
0.50
0
0
0
0.03
0
0.52
0.16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.36
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.73
0
0
Day
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16*
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
W
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.45
0.65
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Site
A
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.40
0.55
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CH
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.58
0.76
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total 5.35
4.20
6.01
1.10
0.95
1.34
Storms sampled
146
-------
APPENDIX A. Daily Precipitation in Inches at the Customs House (CH),
Woodbourne (W) and Ashburton (A) in Baltimore City from September 1,
1974 to September 30, 1975.
Daily Precipitation (inches)
November 1974 December 1974
Day
1
2
3
4
5*
6
7
8
9
10
11
12*
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
W
0
0
0
0
0.65
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.55
0
0.15
0.05
0
0
0
0
0.15
0
0
0
0
0.30
0
0
0
0
0
Site
A
0
0
0
0
0.40
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.75
0
0.05
0.10
0
0
0
0
0.15
0
0
0
0
0.25
0
0
0
0
0
CH
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.58
.65
.06
.12
.10
.26
Day
1
2
3
4 '
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16*
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
W
2.25
0.05
0
0
0
0
0.35
1.00
0
0
0
0
0.05
0.10
0.05
2.20
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.40
Site
A
2.50**
0
0
0
0
0
0.20
1.15
0
0
0
0 1:
0.05
0.15
0
1.70
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.40
CH
3.87
0.08
0
0
0
0
0.15
1.28
0
0
:o
.' 0
<0
:o.i5
:o.os
2.09
0
0
0
0
0.03
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.36
Total 1.85
1.70
1.77
6.05
6.15** 8.06
* Storms sampled
** Estimates based on Customs House data
147
-------
APPENDIX A. Daily Precipitation in Inches at the Customs House (CH),
Woodbourne (W) and Ashburton (A) in Baltimore City from September 1,
1974 to September 30, 1975.
Daily Precipitation (inches)
January 1975
Day
1
2
3
4
5
6*
7
8
9
10
11*
12
13*
14
15
16
17
18
19
20*
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
W
0
0
0
0
0
0.45
0
0.40
0.15
a
0.15
d
0.45
0
0
0
0
0.70
0.20
0.30
0
0
0
0.10
0.35
0
0
0
0
0
0.20
Site
A
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.50
0
0
0
0
0.50
0.45
0.10
0
0
0
0.25
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.15
CH
0
0
0
0.01
0
0.44
0
0.22
0.38
0
0.16
0
0.58
0
0
0
0
0.55
0.38
0.20
0
0
0
0.02
0.42
0
0
0
0
0
0.24
February 1975
Day
1
2
3
4
5*
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23*
24
25
26
27
28
W
0
0.05
0
0.15
0.50
0.05
0
0
0
0
0
0.45
0
0
0
0
0.15
0
0
0
0
0
0.50
0.40
0
0
0
0
Site
A
0
0
0
0.40
0.25
0
6
0
0
0
0
0.40
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.20
0
0
0
0
0
CH
0
0.06
0
0.41
0.34
0.05
0
0
0
0
0
0.43
0
0
0
0
0.15
0
0
0
0
0
0.65
0.36
0
0
0
0
Total 3.45
1.95
3.60
2.25
1.25
2.50
Storms sampled
148
-------
APPENDIX A. Daily Precipitation in Inches at the Customs House (CH),
Woodbourne (W) and Ashburton (A) in Baltimore City from September 1,
1974 to September 30, 1975.
Daily Precipitation (inches)
March 1975
Day
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12*
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
¥
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.10
0
0.45
0.10
0.95
0
0.05
0.20
0
1.85
0
0
0
0
0.55
0
0
0
0
0.10
0.40
0
Site
A
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.55
0
0.70
0
0
0
0
1.85
0
0
0
0
0.60
0
0
0
0
0.10
0.40
0
CH
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.05
0
0
0.09
0
0.43
0.03
1.10
0
0.09
0.29
0
2.34
0
0
0
0
0.88
0
0
0
0
0.08
0.53
0
Day
1
2
3*
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15*
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
April
W
0
0
0.10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.30
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.05
0.45
1.05
0
0
0
0.10
0
1975
Site
A
0
0
0.15
0
0
0
0.10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.35
0.05
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.75
0.90
0.05
0
0.05
0.25
0
CH
0
0
0.30
0
0
0
0
0
0
o,
:I.Q
0
»i,0
0;
0}.42
0
0
0.02
0.14
0
0
0
0.05
0.37
1.47
0
0
0.02
0.25
0
Total 4.75
4.20
5.91
2.05
2.65
3.04
Storms sampled
149
-------
APPENDIX A. Daily Precipitation in Inches at the Customs House (CH),
Woodbourne (W) and Ashburton (A) in Baltimore City from September 1,
1974 to September 30, 1975.
Daily Precipitation (inches)
May 1975 June 1975
Day
1*
2
3
4
5
6*
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
W
0.85
0
0.20
1.65
0
0.20
0
0
, 0
0
jO
:<3.35
j. ;0.20
, , 0
*f 0.10
0.25
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.1**
.8**
Site
A
0.45
0
0.10
1.55
0
0.30
0
0
0
0
0
0.65
0.30
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.40
0
0.30
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CH
0.71
0
0.14
1.95
0.02
0.48
0
0
0
0
0
0.89
0.08
0
0.14
0.21
0
0
0
0
0
0.58
0
1.77
0
0
0
0
0
0.15
0.86
Day
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11*
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30*
W
.5**
o**
o**
o**
1.1**
o**
0
0
0
0
0.30
0.50
0.75
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.05
0
0.95
0.20
0
Site
A
.5**
o**
o**
o**
1.1**
o**
0
0
0
0
0
0.55
0,30
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.80
0.10
0
CH
0.49
0
0
0
1.15
0.15
0
0
0
0
0.26
0.39
0.15
0
0
0.05
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.04
0.16
0.11
0.55
0.20
0
Total 4.70** 4.05
8.08
4.35** 3.35** 3.70
* Storms sampled
** Estimates based on Customs House data
150
-------
APPENDIX A. Daily Precipitation in Inches at the Customs House (CH) ,
Woodbourne (W) and Ashburton (A) in Baltimore City from September 1,
1974 to September 30, 1975.
Daily Precipitation (inches)
July 1975 August 1975
Day
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10*
11
12
13 -
14*
15
16
17
18
19
26
21
22
23
24
25
26
27*
28
29
30
31
W
0
0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
"ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
0.70
0
0
0
0.15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Site
A
0
0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
0.45
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CH
0
0
0.50
0
0
0
0
0
0
4.66
0
0
3.85
1.66
0.02
0
0
0
0
0.83
0
0
0
0.19
0
0
0
0.02
0
0
0
Day
1
2
3
4
5
6*
7
8
9
10
11
12
13*
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
W
0
0
0
0.50
0.10
0.15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.60
1.05
0
0.20
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Site
A
0
0
0
0.40
0.35
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.454 -
1.45
0 -J
0.25"
0.05
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
d
0
1.35
CH
0
0
0
0.73
0.07
0.23
0
0
0
to
'•• 0
-0
-0.69
'1.31
"0
0.17
0.04
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.50
Total 11.0** 11.0** 11.68
2.60
4.30
3.74
* Storms sampled
** Estimates based on Customs House data
ND No Data
151
-------
APPENDIX A. Daily Precipitation in Inches at the Customs House (CH),
Woodbourne (W) and Ashburton (A) in Baltimore City from September 1,
1974 to September 30, 1975.
Daily Precipitation (inches)
September 1975
Day
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12*
13
14
15
16
17
18*
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
W
0.25
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.65
0
0
0
0
0
0.45
0.05
0
0
0.60
2.30
1.00
1.70
1.15
0
0
0
0
Site
A
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.45
0
0
0
0
0
0.45
0.15
0
0
0
1.15
1.55
1.40
1.40
0
0
0
0
CH
0.25
0
0
0
0
0.7
0
0
0
0
0.02
0.55
0
0
0 ,
0
0
0.68
0.10
0
0
0.67
2.40
1.15
1.55
1.35
0
0
0
0
Total 8.15
6.55
8.79
Storms sampled
152
-------
APPENDIX B. Levels of Bacteria, Station A - Raw Sewage
Date
07/17/74
07/23/74
07/30/74
08/05/74
08/12/74
09/09/74
09/16/74
09/23/74
09/30/74
10/07/74
10/14/74
10/21/74
10/28/74
11/04/74
11/11/74
11/18/74
12/02/74
12/09/74
12/17/74
12/24/74
01/06/75
01/20/75
01/27/75
02/03/75
02/17/75
03/03/75
03/17/75
03/31/75
04/14/75
04/28/75
05/12/75
05/19/75
06/10/75
06/24/75
07/07/75
07/21/75
08/04/75
08/18/75
09/02/75
09/16/75
Geom. Mean
Run
Number
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
14
15
16
18
20
21
22
24
25
26
30
31
32
34
36
38
39
41
43
46
47
48
50
52
55
57
60
61
63
Total
Coliform
MPN/lOOml
>2.9 x 10s
5.4 x 108
2.8 x 108
1.3 x 108
3.3 x 107
3.3 x 107
1.7 x 107
3.5 x 107
2.4 x 107
2.4 x 107
3.5 x 107
2.9 x 106
5.4 x 107
2.6 x 10s
3.5 x 107
1.7 x 107
2.4 x 106
7.0 x 106
1.6 x 107
1.6 x 108
3.5 x 107
3.5 x 10s
>2.4 x 107
1.7 x 107
2.8 x 107
1.3 x 107
1.6 x 107
4.6 x 107
1.72 x 1§
>1.6 x 109
3.5 x 107
5.4 x 107
2.2 x 10s
1.3 x 10s
9.2 x 107
3.4 x 10s
4.9 x 107
9.2 x 107
5.4 x 107
5.4 x 107
2.2 x 107
Fecal
Coliform
MPN/lOOml
3.5 x 107
1.7 x 108
7.9 x 107
8.0 x 105
2.3 x 107
3.3 x 107
4.9 x 106
3.5 x 107
2.4 x 107
4.9 x 106
4.6 x 10s
4.9 x 106
1.1 x 107
>2.6 x 10s
7.9 x 106
7.9 x 10s
1.3 x 10s
3.3 x 10s
4.6 x 105
1.7 x 107
7.9 x 106
3.3 x 105
5.4 x 106
3.3 x 10s
3.3 x 106
3.3 x 105
3.3 x 106
1.3 x 107
4.9 x 107
9.2 x 108
3.5 x 107
7.9 x 106
1.7 x 106
3.3 x 105
4.9 x 106
4.9 x 10s
1.1 x 107
1.4 x 107
1.3 x 107
3.5 x 107
6.3 x 106
Fecal
Streptococci
no. /100ml
3.5 x 106
ND
2.4.x 106
5.4 x 10s
ND
5.2 x 10s
9.8 x 105
1.2 x 107
4.1 x 106
1.1 x 106
1.2 x 106
8.3 x 105
4.4 x 105
2.0 x 101*
1.1 x 106
1.1 x 10s
3.4 x 10s
9.7 x 105
3.9 x 105
1.1 x 10s
9.5 x 10s
5.4 x 105
4.5 x 107
1.1 x 10s
1.8 x 106
1.4 x 106
2.7 x 106
9.4 x 10s
1.7 x 106
1.6 x 106
2.4 x 106
3.0 x 106
3.1 x 10s
3.8 x 105
3.3 x 106
9.9 x 105
8.0 x 105
1.3 x 10s
1.4 x 106
9.5 x 105
1.4 x 10s
Pseudomonas
aeruginosa
MPN/lOOml
7.0 x 103
ND
7.9 x 101*
ND
3.5 x 10s
9.2 x 10s
3.5 x 105
2.3 x 106
1.7 x 106
1.1 x 106
3.5 x 105
7.9 x 10s
1.7 x 105
3.3 x 103
9.2 x 106
9.2 x 10s
1.3 x 10s
7.0 x 104
2.2 x 10s
3.5 x 10s
3.5 x 105
7.0 x 101*
3.3 x 105
3.3 x 105
1.4 x 105
1.4 x 105
7.9 x 101*
9.2 x 105
>1.6 x 10s
7.9 x 106
5.4 x 107 .
5.0 x 103
1.4 x 10s
2.3 x 103
2.3 x 101*
3.5 x 105
7.8 x lO1*
1.7 x 101*
2.7 x 101*
2.8 x 105
2.3 x 105
Staph.
aureus
MPN/lOOml
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND'
ND
ND
ND
ND
3.6
2.4 x 102
4.5 x 101
9.4
4.6 x 102
5.8 x 102
2.4 x 103
1.7 x 103
2.0 x 101
3.9 x 102
4.6 x 103
9.3 x 102
2.4 x 103
2.1 x 103
2.4 x 103
2.4 x 103
4.6 x 103
2.9 x 102
4.6 x 103
2.4 x 103
1.5 x 102
6.1 x 101
4.5 x 101
2.6 x 102
7.8 x 101
LSL
3.3 x 102
LSL
2.6 x 102
Salmonella
MPN/10 liters
LSL
LSL
LSL
1.4 x 103
ND
5.6 x 102
5.3 x 101
2.6 x 102
>2.9 x 103
1.2 x 103
4.8 x 102
5.1 x 103
1.7 x 103
ND
2.8 x 102
5.1 x 102
4.8 x 101
1.0 x 102
2.6 x 101
>2.7 x 103
>2.7 x 103
5.1 x 102
5.1 x 102
1.2 x 103
2.7 x 102
4.9 x 102
4.9 x 102
2.2 x 102
1.7 x 102
4.3 x 102
8.3 x 102
2.2 x 102
2.7 x 104
5.1 x 103
6.1 x 102
1.2 x 10**
1.2 x 101*
2.7 x 101*
2.7 x 103
2.7 x 103
5.0 x 102
ND - No Data
LSL - Lower sensitivity limit of the assay. No microorganisms recovered.
153
-------
APPENDIX B. Levels of Bacteria, Station B - Herring Run
Date
07/17/74
07/23/74
07/30/74
08/05/74
08/12/74
09/09/74
09/16/74
09/23/74
09/30/74
10/07/74
10/14/74
10/21/74
10/28/74
11/04/74
11/11/74
11/18/74
12/02/74
12/09/74
12/17/74
12/24/74
01/06/75
01/20/75
01/27/75
02/03/75
02/17/75
03/03/75
03/17/75
03/31/75
04/14/75
04/28/75
05/12/75
05/19/75
06/10/75
06/24/75
07/07/75
07/21/75
08/04/75
08/18/75
09/02/75
09/16/75
Run
Number
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
14
15
16
18
20
21
22
24
25
26
30
31
32
34
36
38
39
41
43
46
47
48
50
52
55
57
60
61
63
Total
Coliform
MPN/lOOml
1.1 x 10"
3.3 x 103
5.4 x 101*
3.3 x 10"
2.3 x 102
9.2 x 103
2.8 x 103
3.5 x 10s
1.3 x 103
5.4 x 103
5.0 x 101
5.4 x 102
1.6 x 103
3.5 x 102
1.7 x 10"
9.2 x 102
2.4 x 10s
>2.4 x 10s
2.4 x 10"
1.4 x 10"
3.5 x 103
1.7 x 103
2.4 x 103
2.2 x 103
3.5 x 103
3.3 x 103
1.4 x 10"
1.09 x 10"
1.09 x 10"
1.1 x 103
1.3 x 103
1.7 x 103
1.7 x 10"
2.4 x 103
5.4 x 103
1.6 x 103
3.3 x 103
9.2 x 103
1.1 x 10"
5.4 x 103
Fecal
Coliform
MPN/lOOml
2.3 x 103
1.7 x 103
2.4 x 10"
7.9 x 103
1.3 x 102
2.2 x 103
ND
3.5 x 10s
7.9 x 102
1.3 x 103
LSL .
5.4 x 102
5.4 x 102
1.1 x 102
1.4 x 103
5.4 x 102
2.4 x 10s
ND
1.3 x 10"
1.4 x 10"
7.9 x 102
2.1 x 102
1.3 x 103
2.2 x 103
3.5 x 103
2.4 x 103
3.3 x 103
7.9 x 103
7.0 x 103
4.9 x 102
7.9 x 102
1.7 x 103
1.3 x 103
1.3 x 103
1.3 x 103
2.8 x 102
2.0 x 102
1.4 x 103
3.3 x 103
7.9 x 102
Fecal
Streptococci
no ./100ml
2.2 x 103
2.2 x 103
1.7 x 10"
7.9 x 103
8.0 x 102
1.3 x 103
8.0 x 102
1.6 x 10"
1.0 x 103
4.5 x 102
7.5 x 102
4.5 x 102
3.0 x 102
1.9 x 102
2.0 x 102
5.3 x 102
4.0 x 10"
2.4 x 103
3.8 x 103
1.9 x 103
5.6 x 102
1.3 x 10"
3.9 x 103
2.3 x 103
1.1 x 10"
2.8 x 103
2.0 x 10"
4.1 x 102
4.2 x 102
3.1 x 102
2.3 x 102
3.9 x 102
8.0 x 103
2.1 x 103
2.7 x 103
1.4 x 10"
2.4 x 102
3.5 x 103
2.5 x 103
2.7 x 103
Paeudomonas
aeruginosa
MPN/lOOml
ND
ND
2.2 x 103
ND
3.4 x 103
1.7 x 102
1.7 x 103
1.6 x 10s
2.2 x 103
2.4 x 103
5.4 x 10"
3.3 x lO1
1.7 x 102
5.4 x 10"
4.9 x 102
5.4 x 103
1.3 x 103
9.4 x 101
1.4 x 102
7.0 x 101
4.6 x 101
2.3 x 102
1.1 x 102
1.7 x 102
3.4 x 101
4.9 x 101
4.9 x 101
2.78 x 102
2.78 x 103
5.2 x 102
3.3 x 101
3.3 x 101
7.9 x 102
1.1 x 101
4
1.7 x 103
ND
1.7 x 102
1.7 x 103
4.0 x 101
Staph.
aweeus
MPN/lOOml
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Nl5
ND
LSL
LSL
LSL
6.8 x 101
2.0
ND
4.0
1.3
3.6
7.3
3.6
3.6
LSL
3.6
LSL
LSL
LSL
LSL
LSL
3.6 x 101
LSL
2.0
7.4
LSL
1.1 x 101
4.8
2.0
Salmonella
MPN/10 liters
LSL
LSL
LSL
LSL
ND
2.0
ND
ND
ND
4.1
1.2
2.7 x Ifl1
4.4
6.7
6.7
1.3 x 101
1.3 x 102
2.6
6.7
LSL
2.6
4.38 x 101
1.17
2.63
7.01 x 101
2.04
6.72
1.12
LSL
1.3 x 101
LSL
LSL
4.4 x 101
1.3 x 101
1.2
5.8
LSL
1.2
1.1 x 101
2.63
Geora. Mean
4.Sx 103 l.lxlO3 1.5 x 103
ND - No Data
LSL - Lower sensitivity limit of the assay.
2.9 x 102 3.2
No microorganisms recovered.
4.6
154
-------
APPENDIX B. Levels of Bacteria, Station C - Jones Falls
Date
07/17/74
07/23/74
07/30/74
08/05/74
08/12/74
09/09/74
09/16/74
09/23/74
09/30/74
10/07/74
10/14/74
10/21/74
10/28/74
11/04/74
11/11/74
11/18/74
12/02/74
12/09/74
12/17/74
12/24/74
01/06/75
01/20/75
01/27/75
02/03/75
02/17/75
03/03/75
03/17/75
03/31/75
04/14/75
04/28/75
05/12/75
05/19/75
06/10/75
06/24/75
07/07/75
07/21/75
08/04/75
08/18/75
09/02/75
09/16/75
Run
Number
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
14
15
16
18
20
21
22
24
25
26
30
31
32
34
36
38
39
41
43
46
47
48
50
52
55
57
60
61
63
Total
Coliform
MPN/lOOml
7.9 x 10"
1.1 x 10"
3.3 x 105L'
1.3 x 10s
1.7 x 10s
3.3 x 105
7.9 x 10"
2.3 x 105'
1.6 x 10s
1.4 x 105
9.2 x 10"
9.2 x 10"
1.7 x 105
1.7 x 105
3,3 x 10"
4.6 x 10"
2.4 x 10"
1.6 x 10s
9.2 x 10"
1.7 x 105
1.3 x 105
3.3 x 10"
3.5 x 10"
5.4 x 10"
3.5 x 10"
1.3 x 10"
5.4 x 10"
3.4 x 10s
1.3 x 10s
7.9 x 10"
1.1 x 10"
3.5 x 10"
1.7 x 10s
3.3 x 10"
,1.7 x 105
2.2 x 10"
1.7 x 10s
5.4 x 10"
ND
9.2 x 10"
Fecal
Coliform
MPN/lOOtnl
4.9 x 10"
1.1 x 10"
1.7 x 10s
4.9 x 10"
1.3 x 10s
2.3 x 10s
4.9 x 10"
2.3 x 10s
1.6 x 10s
9.4 x 10"
1.4 x 10"
3.5 x 10"
1.7 x 10s
9.2 x 10"
3.5 x 10"
2.1 x 10"
2.4 x 10"
2.4 x 10"
3.5 x 10"
3.5 x 10"
4.9 x 10"
7.9 x 103
3.5 x 10"
3.5 x 10"
3.5 x 10"
7.9 x 103
1.3 x 10"
2.4 x 105
4.9 x 10"
7.9 x 10"
4.9 x 103
2.4 x 10"
4.9 x 10"
2.3 x 10"
1.3 x 10s
1.4 x 10"
2.2 x 10"
7.9 x 103
ND .
4.7 x 103
Fecal
Streptococci
no. /100ml
1.1 x 10"
1.7 x 10"
4.6 x 10"
9.2 x 10"
4.9 x 103
2.3 x 10"
1.5 x 10"
3.2 x 10"
5.3 x 10"
1.3 x 10"
1.4 x 10"
5.9 x 10"
2.3 x 10"
3.2 x 10"
3.6 x 10"
2.6 x 103
7.6 x 10"
2.6 x 10"
4.2 x 10"
7.1 x 103
4.0 x 103
1.1 x 10"
2.4 x 103
3.3 x 103
3.1 x 10"
4.2 x 103
7.3 x 10"
3.3 x 10"
4.6 x 103
3.5 x 10"
6.1 x 103
4.7 x 103
1.8 x 10"
8.5 x 103
5.1 x 10"
1.3 x 10"
2.0 x 103
6.7 x 103
7.3 x 103
4.9 x 103
Pseudomonas
aeruginosa
MPN/lOOml
9.2 x 102
2.4 x 102
5.4 x 103
ND
2.3 x 10"
5.4 x 103
2.3 x 10"
2.4 x 10"
3.5 x 10s
9.2 x 103
1.7 x 103
9.2 x 102
1.1 x 103
9.2 x 103
9.4 x 103
1.4 x 10"
2.7 x 103
1.7 x 103
1.7 x 103
>2.4 x 10"
3.5 x 103
1.1 x 103
1.1 x 103
7.9 x 102
5.4 x' 102
4.9 x 102
1.3 x 102
5.42 x 103
1.72 x 10"
1.6 x 10"
2.2 x 102
1.1 x 102
1.3 x 103
2.2 x 10*
8.4 x 101
2.0 x 102
7.9 x 102
2.4 x 103
9.2 x 102
9.2 x 102
Staph.
aureus
MPN/lOOml
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2.0
4.6 x 101
1.8 x 102
1.1 x 101
2.0
LSL
1.7 x 101
1.2 x 101
2.0
4.3 x 101
7.3
4.3 x 101
2.3 x 101
9.1
9.1
3.6
9.1
4.3 x 101
4.3 x 101
3.6
9.3 x 101
4.0
2.0
1.1 x 102
4.0
LSL
2.0
1.8
Salmonella
MPN/10 liters
LSL
LSL
LSL
2.0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2.6
2.0
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.3 x 101
4.4 x 101
1.3 x 102
7.0 x 101
2.7 x 101
-•; 8.2 ;TV-
2.0
4.38 x 101
2.63
7.88
2.72 x 101
6.72
3.21 x 102
2.04
1.17
3.2 x 102
2.2 x 101
4.4 x 10l
- : 1.1 x 101
.88
3.2 x 102
4.4
1.2
.88
6.13
7.0 x 101
Geom. Mean
4.0 x 10" 1.5 x 10" 1.5x 10" 2.1 x 103 977
9.1
ND - No Data
LSL - Lower sensitivity limit of the assay. No microorganisms recovered.
155
-------
APPENDIX B. Levels of Bacteria, Station D - Gwynns Falls
t y f A, f v
Date
07/17/74
07/23/74
07/30/74
08/05/74
08/12/74
09/09/74
09/16/74
09/23/74
09/30/74
10/07/74
10/14/74
10/21/74
10/28/74
11/04/74
11/11/74
11/18/74
12/02/74
12/09/74
12/17/74
12/24/74
01/06/75
01/20/75
01/27/75
02/03/75
02/17/75
03/03/75
03/17/75
03/31/75
04/14/75
04/28/75
05/12/75
05/19/75
06/10/75
06/24/75
07/07/75
07/21/75
08/04/75
08/18/75
09/02/75
09/16/75
Number
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
14
15
16
18
20
21
22
23
25
26
30
31
32
34
36
38
39
41
43
46
47
48
50
52
55
57
60
61
63
Total
Coliform
MPN/lOOml
2.2 x 10*
7.9 x 103
3.5 x 10s
3.3 x 10"
2.2 x 103
1.7 x 10"
5.4 x 10s
1.3 x 10*
2.4 x 10s
3.5 x 10*
1.3 x 10*
9.2 x 10*
3.4 x 102
4.6 x 102
2.2 x 103
1.7 x 10s
3.3 x 10*
3.5 x 10*
3.5 x 10s
1.1 x 10*
7.0 x 102
7.0 x 10s
2.1 x 10*.
1.3 x 103
7.0 x 103
4.9 x 103
2.4 x 10"
>2.4 x 106
3.3 x 103
3.3 x 10*
1.1 x 10*
3.5 x 103
1.7 x 10*
5.4 x 103
1.6 x 10*
1.3 x 10*
3.3 x 103
3.5 x 10*
ND
3.5 x 10*
Fecal
Coliform
MPN/lOOml
2.7 x 103
5.0 x 102
1.1 x 10s
1.1 x 10*
8.0 x 102
7.0 x 103
4.9 x 10s
1.3 x 10*
1.6 x 10*
1.7 x 10*
5.0 x 102
4.6 x 103
8.0 x 101
2.3 x 102
4.9 x 102
3.3 x 102
1.3 x 10*
3.3 x 103
1.3 x 10"
1.3 x 103
7.0 x 102
1.1 x 10s
3.3 x 103
7.9 x 102
3.3 x 103
7.0 x 102
5.4 x 103
>2.4 x 106
1.3 x 103
4.0 x 103
1.1 x 103
4.9 x 102
3.3 x 103
7.0 x 102
4.9 x 102
3.3 x 103
7.0 x 102
1.3 x 103
ND
1.1 x 10"
Fecal
Streptococci
no . /100ml
ND
2.0 x 102
3.5 x 10"
1.3 x 103
4.6 x 102
1.7 x 103
2.3 x 10"
5.5 x 103
8.5 x 103
3.8 x 103
3.0 x 102
1.7 x 103
LSL
1.2 x 102
2.1 x 102
1.2 x 102
>1.0 x 10s
2.4 x 10"
1.0 x 105
6.0 x 102
5.1 x 103
4.5 x 10*
7.0 x 102
LSL
2.2 x 103
2.4 x 103
1.9 x 10*
3.4 x 10*
5.5 x 102
6.0 x 102
3.0 x 102
1.0 x 102
3.6 x 103
2.1 x 103
6.7 x 102
2.8 x 10*
4.5 x 101
8.3 x 102
ND
3.3 x 103
Pseudomonas
aevuginosa
MPN/lOOml
2.2 x 102
2.8 x 102
2.8 x 103
ND
1.6 x 105
1.1 x 103
1.7 x 10s
2.8 x 10*
7.0 x 10*
1.6 x 10*
9.4 x 102
7.0 x 102
7.0 x 101
1.3 x 102
8.0 x 10l
4.6 x 102
1.1 x 10*
1.1 x 103
7.9 x 102
2.1 x 102
3.3 x 102
4.6 x 102
2.2 x 101
1.1 x 102
2.2 x 102
4.9 x 102
9.4 x 101
2.21 x 103
2.21 x 103
2.8 x 103
7.9 x 10l
1.7 x 10l
2.2 x 102
1.09 x 102
1.41 x 102
3.5 x 103
ND
1.7 x 102
ND
2.3 x 102
Staph.
aureus
MPN/lOOml
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
3.6 x 101
3.6 x 101
ND
1.7
2.6 x 101
4.0
6.8
1.4 x 101
LSL
LSL
LSL
9.1
LSL
LSL
7.3
9.3 x 101
LSL
3.0
7.3 '
LSL
2.1 x 101
6.8
LSL
4.0
4.0
LSL
ND
LSL
Salmonella
MPN/10 liters
LSL
LSL
LSL
6.1
ND
4.1
ND
ND
ND
2
1.3 x 10Z
1.3 x 10l
6.1
6.7
4.4
1.3 x 101
2.2 x 101
1
7.0 x 101
7.0 x 101
1
2.7 x 101
2.7 x 10l
27.2
4.38 x 101
2.19 x 101
2.04
1.34 x 102
6.72
2.72 x 101
1.26 x 101
6.7
2. .7 x 101
8.2
5.8
6.1 x 10*
•
1.2 x 10*
*
2.7 x 101
2.0
2.0
4.4
ND
i
2.7 x 101
Geom. Mean
4.0 x 10* 5.9 x 103 1.7 x 103 4.7 x 102 4.5
1.5 x 101
ND - No Data
LSL - Lower sensitivity limit of the assay. No microorganisms recovered.
156
-------
APPENDIX B. Levels of Bacteria, Station E - Loch Raven Reservoir
Date
03/17/75
03/31/75
04/14/75
04/28/75
05/12/75
05/19/75
Q6/10/75
06/24/75
07/07/75
07/21/75
08/04/75
08/18/75
09/02/75
09/16/75
Geom. Mean
Run
Number
38
39
41
43
46
47
48
50
52
55
57
60
61
63
Total
Coliform
MPN/lOOml
LSL
LSL
LSL
1.7 x 101
5.0
2.0
4.0 x 102
1.7 x 102
4.9 x 101
3.4 x 102
4.5
ND
3.3 x 101
7.9 x 101
2.6 x 101
Fecal
Coliform
MPN/lOOml
LSL
LSL
LSL
'1.7 x 101
5.0
LSL
7.0 x 101
8.0 x 10l
2.3 x 101
1.7 x 102
2.0
ND
1.3 x 101
4.9 x 101
1.5 x 101
Fecal
Streptococci
no . /100ml
LSL
5.0
LSL
2.0 x 102
2.0 x 10l
LSL
5.0
4.0 x 101
<5.0
ND
<5.0
ND
<5.0
ND
1.0 x 101
Pseudomonas
aerug-inosa
MPN/lOOml
2.3 x 101
LSL
2.0
LSL
-LSL
0
0
2.3 x 10l
4.5
ND
ND
2.0
4.5
3.1
Staph.
aureua
MPN/lOOml
LSL
LSL
LSL
LSL
LSL
LSL
LSL
LSL
LSL
LSL
LSL
ND
LSL
LSL
<2.5
Salmonella
r,MPN/10 liters
LSL *
LSL
LSL
0.88
LSL
LSL
LSL
LSL
LSL
LSL
LSL
ND
LSL
LSL
0
ND - No Data
LSL - Lower sensitivity limit of the assay.
No microorganisms recovered.
157
-------
APPENDIX B. Levels of Bacteria, Station F - Stoney Run
Date
10/16/74
11/05/74
11/12/74
12/16/74
01/06/75
01/11/75
01/13/75
01/20/75
02/05/75
02/12/75
03/12/75
04/03/75
04/15/75
05/01/75
05/06/75
06/11/75
06/30/75
07/10/75
07/14/75
07/27/75
08/06/75
08/13/75
09/12/75
09/18/75
Run
Number
13
17
19
23
27
28
29
30
33
35
37
40
42
44
45
49
51
53
54
56
58
59
62
64
Total
Coliform
MPN/lOOml
3.5 x 10s
>2.4 x 10s
1.3 x 104
5.4 x 103
1.1 x 10"
1.7 x 104
3.5 x 104
7.0 x 103
2.6 x 104
4.9 x 103
3.3 x 104
7.9 x 103
2.4 x 10"
3.3 x 104
5.4 x 103
3.5 x 103
1.6 x 10s
1.3 x 10s
1.7 x 10s
4.9 x 10"
7.0 x 103
9.2 x 104
7.9 x 10s
5.6 x 104
Fecal
Coliform
MPN/lOOml
4.9 x 104
1.7 x 10"
4.9 x 103
'1.7 x 103
1.7 x 104
3.3 x 103
2.4 x 104
3.1 x 103
1.7 x 10"
3.3 x 103
1.4 x 103
7.9 x 103
1.3 x 104
1.7 x 104
3.3 x 103
1.3 x 103
5.4 x 105
7.9 x 104
1.7 x 105
4.9 x 104
2.3 x 103
1.7 x 104
1.1 x 105
5.4 x 10s
Fecal
Streptococci
no. /100ml
5.3 x 104
9.8 x 104
8.4 x 103
2.4 x 10s
1.1 x 10s
1.9 x 105
3.1 x 104
2.5 x 104
1.7 x 104
8.0 x 103
2.4 x 104
2.3 x 104
5.6 x 104
6.5 x 104
8.0 x 104
3.1 x 104
ND
3.0 x 105
1.9 x 105
4.2 x 10s
LSL
1.7 x 105
1.2 x 10s
3.7 x 10s
Pseudamonas
aeruginosa
MPN/lOOml
2.4 x 10s
3.3 x 102
2.3 x 102
1.1 x 103
5.4 x 102
1.7 x 103
1.8 x 103
>2.4 x 103
1.8 x 104
2.2 x 102
1.4 x 103
1.41 x 103
4.0 x 102
1.7 x 103
4.8 x 102
7.0 x 102
4.9 x 103
1.48 x 10a
2.3 x 103
1.7 x 103
1.3 x 103
3.2 x 102
4.9 x 103
1.7 x 103
Staph.
aureus
MPN/lOOml
ND
2.0
4.9 x 101
2.7 x 101
2.3 x 101
4.3 x 101
4.3 x 101
2.3 x 101
2.8 x 101
9.0
7.3
2.0 x 101
LSL
2.3 x 101
2.3 x 101
1.8
2.2 x 101
4.5
2.2 x 101
1.7 x 101
LSL
LSL
1.0 x 101
LSL
Salmonella
MPN/10 liters
6.1 x 102
2.9
5.0
5.17 x 101
6.12 x 102
2.56 x 102
>1.33 x 103
2.56 x 102
1.33 x 102
3.89
3.89
2.11 x 101
>1.3 x 103
2.7 x 102
2.6 x 102
3.5
6.1 x 102
4.2 x 101
6.7 x 101
2.2
1.2 x 101
6.1
2.5 x 101
1.67
Goom. Mean
4.8 x 104 1.9 x 104 4.1 x 104
1.3 x 103 1.2 x 101
3.0 x 101
HD - No Data
LSL - Lower sensitivity limit of the assay.
No microorganisms recovered.
158
-------
APPENDIX B. Levels of Bacteria, Station G - Glen Avenue
Date
10/16/74
11/05/74
11/12/74
12/16/74
01/06/75
01/11/75
01/13/75
01/20/75
02/05/75
02/23/75
03/12/75
04/03/75
04/15/75
05/01/75
Q5/Q6/75
06/10/75 .
06/30/75
07/10/75
07/14/75
07/27/75
08/06/75
08/13/75
09/12/75
09/18/75
Run
Number
13
17
19
23
27
28
29
30
33
35
37
40
42
44
45
49
51
53
54
56
58
59
62
64
Total
Coliform
MPN/lOOml
2.4 x 10s
2.4 x 105
1.7 x 105
1.3 x 10"
2.4 x 10s
2.8 x 105
3.5 x 10"
7.9 x 103
5.4 x 10"
7.9 x 10"
3.3 x 10"
1.3 x 105
2.4 x 105
1.3 x 105
1.4 x 10s
4.6 x 10"
1.6 x 10s
ND '
7.9 x 10s
9.4 x 105
>1.6 x 10s
1.4 x 106
>1.6 x 10s
1.7 x 10s
Fecal
Coliform
MPN/lOOml
4.9 x 10"
5.4 x 10"
1.7 x 10s
7.9 x 103
4.9 x 10"
4.0 x 10"
2.4 x 10"
1.4 x 103
3.3 x 103
7.9 x 10"
1.7 x 10"
3.3 x 10"
1.3 x 105
2.2 x 10"
2.3 x 105
1.7 x 10"
1.7 x 10s
ND
2.3 x 105
2.3 x 10s
5.4 x 10"
2.2 x 105
1.6 x 106
4.9 x 10s
Fecal
Streptococci
no ./100ml
1.6 x 106
9.2 x 10"
5.2 x 10s
4.3 x 10s
8.4 x 10"
2.4 x 10s
1.7 x 10s
3.8 x 10"
3.4 x 10"
8.3 x 105
2.3 x 105
1.2 x 106
9.2 x 10s
6.8 x 10s
2.8 x 10s
3.7 x 105
ND
ND
9.8 x 105
5.2 x 106
7.3 x 105
4.6 x 106
4.8 x 105
9.3 x 10s
Pseudomonas
aeruginosa
MPN/lOOml
2.6 x 10s
1.4 x 10"
7.0 x 103
7.9 x 102
2.4 x 10"
1.7 x 103
1.4 x 103
1.3 x 102
ND
1.1 x 103
3.4 x 102
2.78 x 103
9.2 x 103
1.7 x 103
3.5 x 103
3.5 x 102
7.9 x 103
ND
3.3 x 103
1.6 x 10"
3.5 x 103
5.6 x 103
2.1 x 10"
1.4 x 103
Staph.
aureus
MPN/lOOml
ND
ND
1.3 x 101
7.9 x 101
7.8
1.5 x 102
1.3 x 102
1.2 x 102
9.3 x 101
1.1 x 103
LSL
3.6
LSL
LSL
LSL
5.6
2.6 x 101
ND
1.1 x 101
6.1
ND
LSL
9.3
LSL
Salmonella
MPN/10 liters
6V2 x 102
>1.1 x 10"
2.6 x 103
1.33 x 102
2.45 x 101
7.78
1.28 x 101
1.28 x 101
2.39 x 10J
6.12 x 102
2.39 x 101
LSL
7.8
2.6 x 101
1.7 x 101
1.1 x 101
1.2 x 101
ND
5.0
5.0
2.1 x 101
1.1 x 101
5.2 x 101
LSL
Geom. Mean
2.4 x 105 8.1 x 10" 6.6 x 10s
3.3 x 103 1.4 x 101
2.4 x 101
ND - No Data
LSL - Lower sensitivity limit of the assay.
No microorganisms recovered.
159
-------
APPENDIX B. Levels of Bacteria, Station H - Howard Park
Date
10/16/74
11/05/74
11/12/74
12/16/74
01/06/75
01/11/75
01/13/75
01/20/75
02/05/75
02/23/75
03/12/75
04/03/75
04/15/75
05/01/75
05/06/75
06/11/75
06/30/76
07/10/75
07/14/75
07/27/75
08/06/75
08/13/75
09/12/75
09/18/75
Gcom. Mean
Run
Number
13
17
19
23
27
28
29
30
33
35
37
40
42
44
45
49
51
53
54
56
58
59
62
64
Total
Collform
MPN/lOOml
1.7 x 10s
3.5 x 10s
4.9 x 103
3.5 x 106
3.5 x 10s
5.4 x 10s
2.4 x 10s
7.9 x 106
ND
1.7 x 10s
7.9 x 10s
2.8 x 107
2.4 x 106
5.4 x 10s
2.2 x 106
ND
3.5 x 106
7.9 x 106
3.3 x 10s
2.8 x 106
3.5 x 10s
7.0 x 10s
3.5 x 106
5.6 x 101*
1.2 x 106
Fecal
Coliform
MPN/lOOml
4.9 x 101*
7.0 x 101*
2.3 x 103
1.1 x 10s
7.9 x 10s
4.9 x 101*
2.4 x 106
2.3 x 105
ND
7.9 x 10s
2.2 x 10s
2.9 x 106
2.4 x 106
2.4 x 10s
4.0 x 101*
ND
2.4 x 10s
8.0 x 10s
2.3 x 105
1.7 x 10s
4.1 x 101*
1.3 x 10s
7.0 x 105
3.5 x 105
4.5 x 10s
Fecal
Streptococci
no. /100ml
1.5 x 10s
3.2 x 10s
1.0 x 103
7.2 x 105
1.4 x 10s
1.7 x 10s
3.5 x 10s
3.7 x 105
3.0 x 103
8.7 x 105
2.4 x 10s
1.4 x 106
7.0 x 10s
5.1 x 10s
8.1 x 10s
ND
ND
6.7 x 105
1.7 x 10s
1.2 x 10s
4.9 x 10s
1.7 x 105
7.1 x 105
6.3 x 101*
2.4 x 105
Pseudomonas
aeim.gi.no8a
MPN/lOOml
5.4 x 10s
1.7 x 101*
1.7 x 104
7.0 x 103
1.8 x 103
1.1 x 101*
2.8 x 101*
2.4 x 101*
1.8 x 103
1.3 x 101*
4.6 x 103
>1.6 x 101*
4.0 x 103
2.4 x 103
3.5 x 103
ND
1.41 x 101*
1.41 x 102
3.5 x 102
8.0 x 101
1.7 x 103
3.7 x 103
9.2 x 101*
3.1 x 103
5.2 x 103
Staph.
aupeus
MPN/lOOml
ND
9.2 x 102
1.7 x 101
1.3 x 102
3.5 x 102
4.6 x 102
1.5 x 102
1.6 x 101
9.1 .
2.1 x 102
4.6 x 102
9.3
1.1 x 101
9.3 x 101
4.6 x 102
ND
8.2
LSL
2.2 x 101
1.7 x 101
1.8
1.8
1.3 X 101
5.5
3.6 x 101
Salmonella
MPN/10 liters
6.2 x 102
1.4 x 103
3.5 x 101
1.50 x 101
1.33 x 101
3.89
>1.33 x 103
6.12 x 102
6.12 x 102
1.72 x 101
2.56 x 102
>1.334 x 103
1.2 x 103
2.7 x 102
1.2 x 103
ND
1.3 x 103
1.1 x 101
1.3 x 102
1.3 x 103
8.3 x 101
1.3 x 103
6.1 x 102
5.0
1.4 x 102
ND - No Data
LSL - Lower sensitivity limit of the assay.
No microorganisms recovered.
160
-------
APPENDIX B. Levels of Bacteria, Station R - Jones Falls Storm Drain
Date
10/16/74
11/05/74
11/12/74
12/16/74
01/06/75
01/11/75
01/13/75
01/20/75
02/05/75
02/23/75
03/12/75
04/03/75
04/15/75
05/01/75
05/06/75
06/11/75
06/30/75
07/10/75
07/14/75
07/27/75
08/06/75
08/13/75
09/12/75
09/18/75
Run
Number
13
17
19
23
27
28
29
30
33
35
37
40
42
44
45
49
51
53
54
56
58
59
62
64
Total
Coliform
MPN/lOOml
>1.6 x 106
>2.4 x 106
5.4 x 106
1.7 x 105
3.3 x 101*
1.6 x 10s
9.2 x 104
3.3 x 105
1.7 x 10s
1.7 x 106
1.4 x 10s
1.3 x 106
1.3 x 106
1.1 x 106
7.9 x 104
7.9 x 104
1.6 x 10s
3.3 x 10s
1.3 x 106
1.1 x 10s
9.2 x 104
2.2 x 105
9.2 x 10s
ND
Fecal
Coliform
MPN/lOOml
>1.6 x 10s
1.3 x 104
3.5 x 10s
4.9 x 101*
3.3 x 104
1.1 x 105
9.2 x 10"
1.7 x 10s
5.0 x 103
7.0 x 10s
9.4 x 10k
4.9 x 105
1.3 x 106
1.3 x 105
3.3 x 104
3.5 x 101*
3.5 x 103
3.3 x 105
4.9 x 10s
4.9 x lO4
2.4 x 104
4.9 x 104
5.4 x 105
ND
Fecal
Streptococci
no ./100ml
2.7 x 10s
4.6 x 105
8.0 x 105
3.4 x 10s
1.6 x 105
7.9 x 10s
2.5 x 10s
6.9 x 104
1.4 x 10s
7.5 x 105
1.3 x 10s
2.4 x 105
1.8 x 105
3.4 x 105
2.5 x 10s
5.5 x 10s
ND
3.7 x 10s
8.3 x 105
7.2 x 101*
5.5. x 10s
4.7 x 104
2.9 x 105
7.6 x 105
Pseudomonas
aevuginosa
MPN/lOOml
7.0 x 104
1.7 x 103
1.6 x 105
3.3 x 103
9.4 x 102
5.4 x 103
1.1 x 101*
9.2 x 103
1.6 x 10s
5.4 x 103
1.1 x 103
4.6 x 103
1.4 x 103
2.4 x 103
9.2 x 103
2.8 x 103
1.09 x 104
2.6 x 103
3.1 x 103
1.8 x 103
3.3 x 103
6.4 x 103
1.1 x 104
2.1 x 104
Staph.
aureus
MPN/lOOml
ND
2.7 x 102
1.6 x 103
1.7 x 102
7.0 x 101
1.5 x 101
1.4 x 101
1.5 x 102
4.6 x 102
2.4 x 102
9.3 x 101
4.6 x 102
1.6 x 101
1.5 x 102
9.3 x 101
3.7
2.1 x 101
6.8
3.4 x 101
1.0 x 101
1.8
1.8
1.1 x 101
1.8
Salmonella
MPN/10 liters
3.3
9.4 x 101
1.3 x 102
5.00
6.12
2.39 x 101
1.33 x 102
1.33 x 103
1.67
LSL
2.22
1.17 x 101
2.6 x 101
4.1 x 101
1.0 x 102
ND
1.3 x 103
6.1 x 102
2.1 x 101
3.9
1.7
: 1.3 x 102
6.1 x 102
1.7 x 101
Geom. Mean
2.9 x 105 1.2 x 105 2.8 x 105
6.6 x 103 4.0 x 101
2.5 x 101
ND - No Data
LSL - Lower sensitivity limit of the assay.
No microorganisms recovered.
161
-------
APPENDIX B. Levels of Bacteria, Station L - Bush Street
Date
10/16/74
11/05/74
11/12/74
12/16/74
01/06/74
01/11/75
01/13/75
01/20/75
02/05/75
02/23/75
03/12/75
04/03/75
04/15/75
05/01/75
05/06/75
06/10/75
06/30/75
07/10/75
07/14/75
07/27/75
08/06/75
08/13/75
09/12/75
09/18/75
Run
Number
13
17
19
23
27
28
29
30
33
35
37
40
42
44
45
49
51
53
54
56
58
59
62
64
Total
Colifonn
MPN/lOOml
2.4 x 10s
3.5 x 101*
5.4 x 10"
1.1 x 10s
1.1 x 10s
9.2 x 10s
1.1 x 106
>2.4 x 106
5.4 x 106
7.9 x 103
5.4 x 105
9.4 x 10s
2.21 x 10s
3.3 x 10s
3.5 x 10s
7.9 x 101*
2.4 x 10s
7.9 x 10s
1.1 x 10s
3.5 x 10s
1.6 x 10s
>1.6 x 10s
5.4 x 10s
1.7 x 106
Fecal
Coliform
MPN/lOOml
4.9 x 101*
1.7 x 103
7.9 x 103
7.0 x 101*
4.9 x 10"
1.1 x 104
2.6 x 10s
>2.4 x 10s
1.7 x 101*
7.9 x 103
5.4 x 101*
7.0 x 10s
1.41 x 10s
8.0 x 1011
2.3 x 101*
9.4 x 103
1.6 x 106
4.9 x 105
3.1 x 105
7.0 x 104
1.4 x 10"
1.7 x 105
3.5 x 10s
3.3 x 10s
Fecal
Streptococci
no. /100ml
3.8 x 10s
5.0 x 103
4.3 x 103
1.2 x 10s
6.5 x 10s
1.4 x 105
3.5 x 105
7.6 x 10s
2.4 x 105
2.5 x 103
9.4 x 10s
1.2 x 106
3.6 x 10s
8.5 x 10s
1.9 x 10s
5.3 x 10s
ND
8.4 x 10s
5.2 x 105
3.8 x 106
4.1 x 105
7.2 x 105
1.1 x 106
1.4 x 106
Pseudomonas
aeruginosa
MPN/lOOml
7.5 x 104
1.1 x 102
1.7 x 103
2.3 x 103
4.9 x 102
2.2 x 103
1.3 x 10"
3.3 x 102
ND
1.7 x 102
1.3 x 103
9.2 x 103
1.10 x id"
5.4 x 102
3.5 x 103
3.5 x 103
2.21 x 101*
3.45 x 103
3.8 x 101
2.2 x 103
4.9 x 103
4.5 x 103
2.2 x 10"
7.8 x 102
Staph.
OUTBU8
MPN/lOOml
ND
7.9 x 101
7.0 x 101
2.3 x 101
9.3
7.3
4.3 x 101
4.6 x 102
4.3 x 102
LSL
9.3 x 101
LSL
1.5 x 101
3.6
2.4 x 102
2.9 x 101
4.0
ND
9.2
5.5
1.8
LSL
1.4 x 101
LSL
Salmonella
MPN/10 liters
1.8 x 101
6.7
8.3
8.34
1.56 x 101
3.89
1.33 x 102
1.50 x 101
5.00
LSL
2.56 x 102
2.06 x 101
5.1 x 102
5.1 x 102
5.1 x 102
8.3
1.3 x 103
3.9
5.0
LSL
1.8 x 101
1.3 x 103
1.3 x 103
1.2 x 102
Geom. Mean
3.8 x 10s 8.3 x 10" 5.6 x 10s
ND - No Data
LSL - Lower sensitivity limit of the assay.
2.0 x 103 1.2 x 102
No microorganisms recovered.
3.0 x 101
162
-------
APPENDIX B. Levels of Bacteria, Station M - Northwood
Date
12/16/74
01/06/75
01/11/75
01/13/75
01/20/75
02/05/75
02/23/75
03/12/75
04/03/75
04/15/75
05/01/75
05/06/75
06/11/75
06/30/75
07/10/75
07/14/75
07/27/75
08/06/75
08/13/75
09/12/75
09/18/75
Geom. Mean
Run
Number
23
27
28
29
30
33
35
37
40
42
44
45
49
51
53
54
56
58
59
62
64
Total
Coliform
MPN/lOOml
2.4 x 10"
3.3 x 10"
2.4 x 103
1.7 x 10s
4.6 x 103
1.7 x 10"
5.4 x 10"
1.3 x 103
3.48 x lb"
4.6 x 10"
1.7 x 10"
1.3 x 10"
5.4 x 10"
1.1 x 10s
ND
1.4 x 10E
7.0 x 10"
3.5 x 10"
3.5 x 10"
1.4 x 105
3.5 x 10s
3.8 x 10"
Fecal
Coliform
MPN/lOOml
1.3 x 10"
7.9 x 103
8.0 x 101
7.9 x 10"
4.0 x 102
<2.0 x 102
1.3 x 10"
2.0 x 102
1.4 x 103
2.0 x 103
1.1 x 10"
2.0 x 102
1.3 x 102
4.0 x 10"
ND
3.3 x 10"
2.3 x 10"
2.4 x 10"
3.5 x 10"
9.2 x 10"
2.4 x 10s
6.9 x 103
Fecal
Streptococci
no. /100ml
1.0 x 10s
1.7 x 103
1.8 x 10"
ND
4.4 x 10"
6.0 x 103
3.6 x 10"
1.7 x 10"
3.1 x 10"
1.2 x 10"
4.1 x 10"
1.7 x 10s
3.0 x 10s
ND
ND
1.1 x 10s
3.7 x 10s
1.5 x 10s
1.1 x 10"
1.1 x 10s
2.0 x 10s
5.0 x 10"
Pseudomanas
aeruginosa
MPN/lOOml
1.8 x 102
4.9 x 102 .
1.7 x 103
3.5 x 103
2.3 x 102
1.1 x 103
3.5 x 102
9.2 x 103
7.0 x 102
2.8 x 102
1.7 x 101
3.4 x 102
7.9 x 103
ND
<8.0
1.1 x 10"
2.3 x 103
1.7 x 10"
2.6 x 103
1.2 x 103
5.9 x 102
Staph.
aureus
MPN/lOOml
2.3 x 101
2. a
7.0
4.3 x 101
4.6 x 102
4.3 x 101
LSI,
9.3 x 101
LSL
1.5 x 101
4.0
2.4 x 102
2.4 x 102
4.0
ND
LSL
LSL
LSL
LSL
1.4 x 101
LSL
1.2 x 101
Salmonella
MPN/10 liters
LSL
LSL
5.00
LSL
LSL
7.78
LSL
2.22
LSL
7.8
4.3 x 101
LSL
LSL
1.7
ND
2.6 x 102
1.1 x 101
5.2 x 101
LSL
5i2 x 101
3.3
5.7
ND - No Data
LSL - Lower sensitivity limit of the assay. No microorganisms recovered.
163
-------
o o o
0 0
XXXXX XXX
oin^-frHO m «tf I*--
«3- CM tH rH rH fHCMrHOO
XXX XX
o o o o o
en \o cr» o O rHinoo
X X XX
m m en CM
o-o ooco coorHcno
d
X
XXX
en O CM
o o
X X
o m o o o
m o o o
XXX X
O rH CM CM
^rocMen oooeno
XXX
en O en (
•H -3- rH (
000
XXX
en en en
rH rH rH O O
o o
rH rH
X X
O O
o o o
CM O O O
XXXXX
CO rH rH CO rH
XX XXX
m en oo CM CM
o co *H o o \ocncno
00 CTi iA O v
m in in m in
f^ rH CM O r—
m m m m
to
a)
w
3
•H
i>
o
•H __.
£f oo
° g
M |"
«H " S
o
CO
rH
O
>.
J
O
H
Pj
-3
«
•H
O
"3
Q.
w
2
o 7
•H O.
-x. W
m ""
o
p
g
03
Jo
0)
U
O
'o'o'o'o'o
XXXXX
-sr o fH o o
rH rH rH O en
"o
rH
X
rH
CM O O O O
O O O O O
X M X X X
en en en rH \o
H rH CM rH rH
O O 0 0 0
XXXXX
•3- en o m i-*
rH rH
rH en en
"jr *T «* in in
. o en co o en
rH CM CM CM O
"^•^. >*x,'^.*^
SON o *-t m
o -H o o
j- 01 co co
O O O O
X X X X
r-» o en CM
o CM m fH r-
eM m
0 0
fH rH
X X
m en
0 0 0 rH rH
O O O
XXX
CM en en
en tH -H 0 0
V
00000
XXXXX
CM o en en m
en « -H osr
~0
rH
X
en
rH 0 O 0 0
o'o'o 'o
XXX X
o CM m CM
«* en oo O en
V V
o o o o
XXX X
en O CM O
rH tT CM O -T
in r-. o fH en
in in vo vo vo
i/* m in m m
fH -iT CO CM SO
CM O rH O »H
*-. --V •*-. ^-» "-X.
00000
o o
o o
XX XX
o\ m o CM
CO CO O rH rH
rH O O O O
X XX
m en >*
O CO O rH tH
o o o o
XX XX
en m en
-------
^
0)
4J
•H
tH
0
rH
O
m
s
s
u
0)
•H
O
rH
D
y-i
Cu
1
CM
I
Q,
Ed
X
i
e -
pi a
a>
^
«
O
OOOOQ OOOO 0
XXXXX XXXX X
rH in rH 00 VO OfHinrHrH rH
m CM ro CM r~*
OOOO £*
,H ,H ,_i ,_( rH
XXXX X
co en co co CM S "J*
^ _5 ,4 ,-J 0 0 en O 0 0 0 C £
o **<
•H _«
j- co m " >
O O O rt S
*"* ""* I~I w S
XXX £
O co en
•3- CM O «H O OOOOO O
CM fO CM CO CM C\i r-« C\ CS CM "t^
OOOOO OOOOO O
XXXXX XXXXX X
eo *o eo eo eo cninencnco en
*H «* rH iH »H iH CO »H fl iH rH
CM co eo ** *a- -*inmtnm o
mmminm mmininm in
r^r*Hr^r--r^ r^r^p^-^r^ r-»
^fc^.-^.*-^.*^ -*-.-^'^.'^.-^ *^.
r^coesvOtH eMOrHinco CM
OCMrHrHO iHCOtHCMtH rH
rH CM co »ff in vo vO r-» r** CO' CJ*
OOOOO OOOOO O
l-i
u
S
IT
a
H
V
•H
O
O.
td
CM
1
O.
w
s
C •
ci c
0)
4J
fl
OOOOO O OO OO
XXXXX XXX^) XX
•^•MOCOCOP-. CO COOX OO
CMfHfH^CM rH CMrHOJ r^CO
o 0*0 'o o o
rH rH rH rH rH rH
XXXX I 1 X X
CO CO CM CM m CM
OrHtHcnen coOco OO
V V V
cMCMror-«rs 1-1 •« « ^-c-:
OOOOO OOO OO
XXXXX I1XXX XX
mvoom»n CMCMO CMCO
fHfHiHcoco enenrH entH
A V V A V
focoroforo CM f^ f^ ff. r-* C\
OOOOO O OOO OO
XXXXX XIXXX XX
CMiHrHrH-* *H CMeOi-1 COrH
A V A
mmminin mmmmm min
T-^inmcMvo rHCMO«*in eneM
OOCMiHrH OrHenOCM rHrH
OOOOO OOOOO OO
CO
0)
CO
j3
M
"H
r> ^J
o
u
rH
S
iw
&
4J J s
(U ciS
M eO ^
w a!
M-l x
J
CO
^H
0)
r^*
m in
r-- r-
CM VD
O rH
Ov O>
O O
s
OOOOO
XXXXX
i O O
I »H rH
: x x
xxx
CM en vc
XXX X
en m en co
rH rH CM O rH
X
CO O
XXXXX
O O O CO en
XXXXX
rH rH rH en in
CTv »
-
TO \
» in in
in m m m in
in in
en CM
165
-------
CO
0)
CQ
s
•H
r^
O
•H
0)
•U
W
O
CO
1
CO
o
M
Q
|2I
S
SI
J
I
e i
•S V
a i
c
K
a
* B
sS
o w
•H
*3 t-i
O
O
"3
U
0)
JJ
•H
tH
s
5
D.
.J
SG
a
•H
"H
0 1
"d w
IT
a
H
g
a
c •
3 O
OS C
V
u
a
a)
u
1-1
o
rH
D>
i
^
0)
•H
O t
S) H
9
g
x
i
c •
3 O
sz c
0)
AJ
eN.cs.cs
O O O
rH rH rH
XXX
m r-* co
CM en "^f o O
*0 *0
rH rH
X X
en en
CM O O rH O
'o'o'o'o
rH rH rH rH
X X X X
CM CO rH CM
en m CM en o
CN, CM .— r-i
0 000
rH rH rH t-t
X 1 X X X
\O CM CM rH
CM encncM1
SSSS3
m u*> m m m
r«*. in en CM o
O O CM rH rH
-H CM CM P-I *. ***. *^^ ^.
O O O O O
CN •-*
O O
rH rH
X X
0 0
000*3-0
"o
•^
X 1
CM
0 0 en o
V
o
rH
X I
O
O O i-H O
CM •»*
O O
rH rH
X X 1
^3" CM
o o rC en
** C\ rH en O
**f
-------
bO
0)
§
•H
4-1
cS
|" SSSRS SSS-"S SKSR5 3S335 SS3S3 gSgS3 SgRSS RS SR3 §
3*** tnr*.\OT-iainarM%DrMC)r*.cnQcnin
*-l ~4 CM g 1-4 IE iH .H S5 •** as
S *i -JS3eM«n CM « £
«M oo co ^ e
11
o M tnoeoiHO ocoeomo «r^-cooco mcMOcoto ooenom
o lAtncnta-in cncnSevm in CM <• <• -a- oinmmr* m<-m oo in o Cf» « eo oj winjo»-|«9j ^j c< ^ m o
•H
O
CJ
8
o
p.
cu
M
4J
CO
_<*£»< o o o sr m oeooo o o nSooe e CM ^ o *n
,H SB o o o o o)
r»cMmocn \ootO
ss *>"=""s •!rsor-s g^.i^a
r-. m OQOOO *»
r*> CM in
c, s«c; p
0
(U
d
•S
I
4-1
CO
Q
a
»-* 5 « n » M r-
0*00
g 5RSSS SSS8S R3SSS SS5SS gRiRS SiSSS S3 S33 |
'§ -^asR ssass; s-s^a sssss 3rtssa gRisa agass ss
>y>ocncM neaeocho \ocncooo •*°lNSe3
i-( k f-400tOO ON Ch
i«a- cnSS-fl-irun •«*»
i&St& Fssss sssss sssss sssss sss-s-s sssss ss
iV> eMeo«M»-ifH eMcn-tfOF-i •^*»f--c
MB incN«H-a^*H *HcosrcMtH t^tncnr
tr> ^ tn >H oo **• r^ *T ^~ <* •9>o«- CTi OS Q OOO»H^ wHCMCMCMCNt
0 O O O SJ rt iH f4 i-l rt ^* «-* i-l «H .H
O O O
SS
167
-------
M
CM tn «H in
(U
I
M
a
o
•H
4J
CO
•H
U
O
O
o
o
4-J
S*
4J
co
•3
o
03
O
•H
W
I
4J
CO
•H
o
g.g
.JJ 3 K OOOOO O *H O O O O -JT -3- *T> r»
1OOt O2OOO in •» VD CO
VD CO •<• O
en TH in
a** £ £ £? ^ « \P r- o -a- p rHOivcoo o n a. x> coSoT-J KK tnScM
•H TH
tn tn *-4 ^- tn -a- 2
tn tn CM
•3 -a- *fl \o
*• *B ** goooo 0000,0 o o o in *o ooo^JO»-< so«ooo r^*no»Hvo inenom-a- -a-ocMtMoo moo-Too ooooo OO \o «o co ot
»•* T-tCMTHTHTHtHTH cnrHTHTHSS tn \O
•- p
1
'*'-• r^ **. f-»««-(rtt-( pHrHtHf-lrH f4r*i-4f-i.* i^^n^N in-^rin^ m^nis^ Ncssr^n rinaicon N^i^oln cJr!
%
O *
t-«"'>33 SSSSS SSSSS SSSSS SSS33 S5SS3 SSSRS 3S S 3
I I *
assss SS555 5S55S KHSRS KSSKR RSSRR RRRRR ER -s s o
sssss sssss sssss sssss sSsss Bssss sssss °:''° s •? s z
- ^^~J^^ ^575^7* ' ^^^^
pioiois^O OCSOrtrt -7NMMN JrtrtSS SSSJ3 S
OOOOT-4 iHiHrH(-<^ THv4fl<-l*H OOOOO OOOOO O
0000 OOOOO 00
168
-------
CO
1-^
cd
CQ
si"
II0.
•2 € «0 K
e o K
5 S £ 0
O" Si C
to iS w
.3 1
1*1**
* ^i
to to
IM
° S -o
S*J fj
eg *J
•8-3 3
3 m *J
Z -H
1-
O B
rH 1) O
In Q) •
M O
4J C
a
u
a
S
EO
P
SiiSS
"SS3S
°ii°3
S S §3S
<» Q Q in in
0 g 0 on
oggon
s§i°a
en p Q O r*
K SS
S z z \o m
"giSS
z z -*• *
sssss
CM iH en in vH
^""Sfl
<• <• -a- -a- ft
Iss§§
2 E S S 2
r. m o o o
in -^ *a* m %o
m co m t-i en
SRS"3
O O O 0 0
0 O 0 O O
10 0 eo O o-.
-3- O en o en
en eo "a1 rt w
CM tn ^H i~4
co 0 0 co in
* * * * *
i-5 in es en en
CM -3- m \o co
£££££
^^ — .*-.*-*
•T tH eo -a* rH
— 1 CM CM O »-(
^"o o75^?
CM CO in r* CM
^t CM en en tn
•H-1
co « en «3-.«o
S CM S °* CM
0 en o 0 O
O iH O O O
CM iH
m ••a1 o o en
vo tn en <• m
in co o en o
in to to 0* r^
CM en CM --i en
•o-o-o-o-o
tO tO «5 CM f-l
CM r* CM ^ rC
CM CM CM «M CM
£££££
^•^•«^^'—
co CM Ch r> •?
33B33
o P -a- en 1-1
TM Z "« «n iH
-ig
>oz«r-3-«i
CO P ifi CM CO
CM £ r-l r-i
o p o o o
O p O O O
"§33°
"i1""0
r-. P iH en co
SiSS-
= °sss
0 M -ff tn ^H
•^ fH CM tn en
tO O fH CM *±
CM m tn en en
in ir, in in in
^^r^tn^
O CM CM O •-!
o o a o a
tn «H IM m to
u-, co in to en
s^ssa
o o o o o
s0saN
•3- O tO tO i-t
^H
in to to m ^a*
r-< CM t-H
en t>- en en co
tn "a- •* -a1
000*0 *0
CM en tn to ui
•a1 r^ en "a- en
en en tn *» -«•
in in m in in
§5S2s
en en en -a1 •»
C3 g CO f^ CM
"gas-s
o g o o o
a
O Q CM O CM
O P ^ O to
r-.Zo r-v o
en z en «H CM
•a- z ^l i~<
o p o -a- o
opomo
to g O O O
en Q o o o
-« P CO r4 O
-a- 35 ^ rt
SO o m O
Z m en m
SSSSS
*n I-H m o »—
co m <-t CM vo
o CM in r* o
m m m m «
m m m m m
CM O CM O iH
tO ^^ CO CO
o o o o o
SS
rX to
r— -a-
O 0
o o
3°
r- O
o eo
\£>M>
O •*
tn en
SS
si
en en
r- -*
^ en
tO
-------
S|M ssssg Ka°3o sssss. sssis sgs=g gg-a" sgsgs gs sss g
"• 1.1 NaMSS «-~000 «««,«•;« "ggg" Sg-OO, gg«"n-< <"g3~B g01
• in co «r
J5 g*< omoor- oo o *4 »•« rt •» »-l 85 CO Z iH *a- SB HS »-t .-C g 35 (O i-t CO o
g in^Or-.«o-tn CMI-.CJIOO t»-»Of^cO COiHrHSCI^. Sr^iAH S a 03 ED 03 eoSr»iHS SS CO in CM §'
S§ ^SS^S ^^^SS 22^9*^ shmrMpco IHPMIAH PPCO\O*O »-t p %01-1 <• oo
^« CilCMCO »-( CM H r-l »-<»-( g gtO ZS-ffCOCoSScOCMS.*
•2 in eo h-
HMK oeeomo oooo o eM Nlftm3S ^3Sc"-|"w**l>lgp^ *§;$•*'•< gg^Sco cogco^N gS
w
III "gssfg a-"ss saaaa ssaga sg3<"s gggss sgs«s is
-|| sSsss sssas ss^ss sssss sssss sslss ssssl s
g urj KKXXX XKKKX KKKKK KXKKK KKKKK XKKX KKKXX OX
*" £ o "^ *"! "2 "2 ® ®u2c?fll'1 C1®"^°® ^"3^°^ -» m ^ in o oo«a *H t^ co tn r> «n
«c i-lNine)(*> Of^^tHr* *-4^(M<-4to in*Tr~r4M tSFHtntntf tnrtrtj «4\or4-(reo tn
>3S 33SSS SSSSS SSSSS SSS53 S5S5S SSSRS 3S
•a & «
2 I s
*° * O
. 55S55 555S5 gssss ESRIOIC SKHSS KKSRS KRSSS ss •& s s
I I3S§e 5SSS3 5iI5s IsSsS sssss BSsss sssss sa 1=1 2 -
sssss sssaa assss sssss sssss sssss Sssli 11 Us I "
O
O
l-l
I
<£>
"H
O
CJ
8
o cd
4J 4J
Ai ct)
0) (=1
4J 4J
'M g
H -H
ctf O
O iH
cu IN
14-1 co
"•9
,
§
•H
•U !-l
. 3 -H
^ O
•H >
H M
•U CD
CO CO
Q
S
APP
170
-------
a
3
CD
rj
0
| I
4"J
CO
1
Pn
0
•H
rt
4J
CO
•V
•H
o
O
O
O
4-1
R1
a)
CO
i-H
cfl
o
CD
4-4
C
O
•H
•P
3
•rl
CO
•rl
O
' ' eo o*
fl>M fl M ov »O r- O f~ in «-l CO O O VO r*> Ov CMOQOC4 Q 10 *Q- 1-1 (-4 CO CO
W -H "* ' .- , • '
i5 %
am*
ac NNrtrtrt _. N^rtrt rt-,« H§i~ g^MM
a ax %oeNt^o^D o co O o* ch o »t * J . . ,-•
J-Sf.
M«C °CN r-l CNr-(i-t B5B Z .-1
M
^' ' ' '- ' • *5-N
o « en m o » t-~ -g- Q o o -* pincNvr t-i in in
o cn-4-tom crvi-tcncNtn soco«-imt-< r- S z tn co 55 mv m CM ts CO
T-* -ti g rH rHCNCN ZZ Z CN
| g^ 1 . ' ' '
V, > 3 B g O CN en O *» iH OOO\O«n toxocsl-a-t-l CNOOrHO OOOO
o* S> c z z z
t-i
•2 e • *•
*-» 3 X h^r^4 T^ON^^^cn r<^>-4oinr^< o O o co o Q r* o en
^ 1-1 to en -3- *?• CN vr enenenenen cNcNin*?^ inzz^m K <± in -T
S CD W
Z -H
•rt . ' " -
t) * » - .
o li ^j'o'o'o'o 'o'o'o "0*0 "o'o'o "b1© "o o o"o P P S
i-t O O rHr4rHrH*4 'iHrHrli-li-l. tHrHrHr-liH *-t «-l«H»-C *HrHrH
C9 O O
CN
in
i
1
•*
S
OS
\D
8
*H"
c^ cnt^o»«nr» coo*ocnm i*.ocN«*»n en^en^o cocncN-31
3S »-tt-*»-(tNeN cNtstnenen en-»-r-a-»a- -a-ininmin u-»m>o*D
OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO O § O O ZSW £ Z
171
-------
enue
§
H
O
d
o
•H
4J
•U
CO
•H
O
O
O
U
O
4J
0)
U
1*1 o Q f> g r«» >r rn CM o o\ o\ m o c fi o es CM ot *a* o f
CI44 m IH *a- «»en a •* t«» en en i— \s co r- «c- z sc z r*. -a- *o •« en m e\
j j* = ~-^c £ ,-t *M0^Dw§§§*
e»« pN^tnr*
SCO *-<
•* CM
SS3
te v>
tn *-4
I SSS"e
39»*7 ocritHcntn
•Itn^ cnrM3t-*f-i
•i^x eoooo oooo^- o o o o o gogeo OOOM
§§§'
^J A gM OM-a-ocn oertcnoo «s-oooo aaaoo oo
O O O H C
Igg'
OOcsino O o\ tna\ff \oo\>-jri(n O o o -a- eo m *o r^ e*j
meaiA^n zr>i*Hrn<-< CMCM^^H^ ESzwm r* SQSoe e?»o«a-o
Mfncn-a-** z ss g m «n -a-m-a-m
'ssssls ss'S^s sssss s ss ssss
K M K K K KKXXX KKKXX KPOXX KXXX
^DMC*^(n-a• <4-rv.com CM aa
^O**AI*CQ NrHtnnco c4*Ho\\otM n o«tn h»«a>*ap(n
eoehomm r^ Q c*t *9 m o\ »^ n •» \o eo ot CM O O O O O O O O O OOOC
1!! 1
S= £ W 0-
172
-------
X
n
cfl
PM
'S
**
s
f-M
|
W
a
O
•H
JJ
nJ
4J
co
•rT
O
O
o
o
o
p.
(U
4J
CO
.
n)
0
f
0
ti
o
~_1
•n
•P
3
•H
4-1
M
•H
Q
Q
X
M
§
PM
2!
01 K
OJ i-l
O *J
(H -H
C. C
» §K
•H C
S^"3
,0 £ tr
« 01 •
to • c
"I x
o
u
0) •
s s
i-l tvl K
3 B
a.1
^^ ts
< • c
te
s
S -S 5K
l^ll,
5- &c
• *ti R
.3 1
«• «s
U-c
O a
m •a
h 4J U
JD ,3 0
"g 0 01
i5"
•H
^ §1
CD O O
U
01
C -a
(i i
c
4J
Q t*i a o •*
§ *° § S IH
7: K CM n
z S
i^iss
8-ea*
Q o a o o
gogoo
g o p co -a-
i51gS
JK Z
o in o o u*>
tn in in in in
O O O O O
K X K X X
en r- m en t*.
SSSSR
^H O ^H ^ O
O i-i iH CM t-{
M rH rt rH 0
Nn^wvo r-**om
TH.-I CM iHrHCMCMf-C
1-H M O ^>
iH CM
g-H^ojn jn*»eoojjn
cMin-a-^in *otncoer.^-(
CM iH iH rt i-t i-t
oooon OOCMOO
•-t *H ^ rH
intneoeocM inor^ino\
i-t i-i rH rt
vor«cMco«T r- eo co co eo
»» » « »
O O 0*0 O 00000
KKXXX KXKKK
i-t « « fn eo w .H r- m co
coo\O«nm r-ocM-a-m
ininininm inmininin
.— i n o m «s cMomrHi^
^i-tcMOt-l M0<-<00
ooooo ooooo
o a s r- CM
§ § § s*
S 5 » -*a- es
a 2 § CM rH
£3 g g r^- 0
iiisa
O Q Q O O
55 SG K
§ 55 Z °
gggoo
is§°°
a n Q r~ o
*"""
agoc.0
in in o
000
Q g X X X
O» M O •* «>
in m m m in
T-H o o -a- r-
\o vo r^ r-- t--
OOOOO
co o r^. *-<
CM 3 SS
M in
-------
o
co
(0
t-H
CO
to
0)
a
i^
i
0
O
•ri
•U
.p
CO
„
•ri
O
U
O
U
O
4J
Pi
a>
4J
co
o
Q)
o
a
o
•ri
4J
•ri
M
4J
(0
•ri
P
.
P
H
§
PM
5!
« M
» *a- to
ooooo ooooo otn-a-ocM ocaoo CMO-^O *HO>H r*i
G O O O O OOOOO OfliHOt-t 0 P P 0 0 rHONO
oomtno mo*nu>o ooo ^m«v*Ttnm \o IJD r-- r*. r* tocoo\o% aa)u o
^*H^r40 OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOO Z£U »<
174
-------
4->
0)
CD
t-i
4J
CO
CO
pq
ft) K Q o eo GO <-< Q o\ •«• CM o
> 35 in T-( *n en 55 en o* -a- CM
i 4J
.OP Q in i* Cti i-4 p CM ^H en rt
CWB SZ rt 31 ^ en rH
•a- n -^ en
I
4-1
CO
•H
O
O
O
U
O
•U
0.
M
4J
CO
-.0~ g«0«rt
rocot
40: K^eMcMn acntntn cMcMfncn«a- mB;JE*3--3- •*•»•«•«.
IS'
OS OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO O OOO OOOO
THUS SSSi-tiH ^Hrt^^rt (H^^rH^H ^t iH-Hi-( rtiH^-t-H
doo ,uu^. uu U1J u«uuu uuuw
r-s--* -srinminin
175
-------
o
o
1
M
o
1
a
o
•H
4J
•rT
0
g
O
O
4J
p.
0)
CO
nt
o
0)
o
0
o
•H
4-1
4J
•H
Q
S
g
pj
a
UK *H r» p p c\ m *- .a- m I-H \o m m a P en *N o oo tt> *-<
,.5* tNf z Z CM NO
**•$?.? «*» t-j p e f»i eo c*> CM -a- r*. nmooPQ *3- rH co eo >a- o
O.C S35IM fHfHCMcM r-IrHrHSz i-l MiHr-( m
•} gx r*»oeo« oocn^r-t r^tMNpo *a- o o o tM CM
** ^ 35 Z rH rH m ZZ CM fH
-o -q §•
e «* .
" JB
|- SSiSS RSSKK SaSSg.5g§5S R
jg c SsS'3' tMNtsSS 3"~S§g S5SSK 3
•§
•H *-l M OOPOO OOOOO -T O O P g (MOOOO CM
S«^ •
<0j'S ZZ §;s OH
3 *^ §N °°§Z° S ° *** ° "^ OONQQ CM O O 0 0 CM
""^ S. fe2 OOQPO r-IO-HOCM OOrHpQ rHOOOO tH
•2* W Z S CM *s K
•8 i
*e ,3M ogppcn J^J2OvDP1 cninr^oca tn-eomo .coo o\
ArHE r-tCMtczm cnmro-c-sr CM^T-^-ZZ ^3-m****"^ •*
V 0.^, K K K P K KKKKK K K K p p K K K K K K
*JS rHrHrH -^- \DnrHOH -a-iHcn rHcnrHrHrH d
S!
J-g nr*»coovo rninr^ots •a/inotHcn «T\OCOO^(M •*
• cNcMcMcMcn cncncn*T«» »»«ai
-------
C fl)
0*
Ug
U
o to
ta rH
c.
3-CO -a-nCOCOZ r^-ZCO-a-fO COCN
inCLocj\in coincoxDvo vOfH^incM ocoinovo „ ^3 Q r^- o C^CMCM- O rH
r-* r*- r^ r*. r^-
Sv£> co o r-^
rH CM CO O
O O O O rH
m
CM Z
CM a
o
CM CO
-a* -T
r^. r-
32
C 0
c*j c-4 in
r~ r^ CN
C\ O CM
co -a- -a-
•0 ^VO
•jf tn ^o
-H co -a-
CM CM O
0 0 rH
^3-in»a-cOrH cMCMcomrH vDvor-rHin co
otTvincoo^ in r»* \o \o f" i ininrHOtH inz;
oo%mcoco \omQcoQ cs-a-'a-^rco QQ
CM co CM r-. coco rH m c*
•o--»3'«3'*a'-i'a' 'O'mintnin inintninin inin
r-.r-r— r—r- p-p-r».p-*r^ r^p-»r-.r-n«. r*f-».
iHcocMCTif*^ •a'voof^-co r*« co r** — J *a" COCM
-H-HOOrH CMOCMCMO — 1 O rH CO rH CMrH
CO CO
rH in Z
Q 0 Q
j^
§ VD §
in in in
p-.r-.p-*
& o -a-
o o o
"Z. Z
Q a
o
r- Z
CM -a-
p- -a-
O rH
O O
vO .0
CO CO S
r^- P--
CM *a- Q
o o\
p- ya z
m P- o
m m m
i-H ^T CO
CM 0 rH
O O O
CM O"i
tn CM
\O P*»
CO C
CT» O
sO I-
rH CO
tn m
p- P^
CM vC
0 -H
O O
177
-------
CO
u
•H
4J
CO
•H
0)
O
td
td
rG
0
.
cd
o
1
01
o
^
o
•H
CO
PM
W
K^
I
^
5J
§0
tc
_ -ess
B *
O rrj (X
SI1**
I
B.
U r- "**
« g
u
u.
§5
n
w S
en
u
0
jU
u u
il
TJ C
s >
w S
.a
u
»s
vO O
c a in o
s ss m m
a a p •«• -c
2 =: S rH
en co cn CM vo
1 • * * • *
c p c^ m en
22 rH
CO CM r. CM \O
cj vo r*« *o r*> r**
U
ex
F
"S
e •
£§
4J
n
P 0
cn
o
m
CTV
O CO
en i-i
r~1 V
cn o
CO CO vO CM CM
r-* H
•* •*
O iH
»-t -H
r-t --C
C*
i u
s:
o
c -
3 0
1
r»» p
2
n
•*
rH
CM
0%
CO CM
lr^
CO CJ\
m in
(v. »H
r-i en
m en
0 O
^
* vo
CM rH - CM «^
m in in in in vo vo
m m m m m in in
oo O r- vo en CM co
CM rH CM O rH rH rH
O O O O O O O
178
-------
CO
0
•H
4J
CO
•H
o.
u » g.u
2 rt E-1
" £
» »
S =
o
c •
3 0
« C
01
4J
m «a
Q P C^ in CM
CO rH vO
P P • • •
0 P P P£
s a a 2= CM
P CO i?\ vD CO
g rH rH
CT^ -* rH H CO
vo p*. r- r- so
en on
P rH O -»
a rH 55 rH
gCOOvvO^
CM CM rH cn CO
rH rH CM CM CM
-a- -a-
rH
s3- CM m
K rs, ix, r-. 55
•
-------
rH
cd
O
cu
ft
O
co
rH
CO
> CO
CU 3
t-3 M
•H
CU >
4-1 rH
Crt
|r^ s
4-1 -H
•H 3
CO
3
M
•H
rH
cd
s
•H
-0
F)
cd
Q
r-i
i
££
v-i
^5
^O
^j
m v-i
O v-i
fi S
O O
*fH fc
4-1 v-5
O «
CO CQ
4J
CU
O
MH
0
^
O
§
3
CO
F*4 6
^i
O
• m
Pt< • -H
MS 'o
i-l M o
f^ O
W -H cd
PM rH CJ
£LJ o cU
<5 U F>4
O v-i
•H O
4-1 fi rH
CO cd ' —
a co &
Q) Jsj fe
CU
•rl
4J
B^ -H
CO
O
CO CO
MH CU >
O rH -H
ft 4J
• g -H
O cd co
!z; en o
PM
in co
o cu
rH
• ft
o S
13 cd
O f-i
•H 0
4J 0 rH
CO Cd *«..
0 CO J2J
u s s
CO
f>
•5
4J
a-s -H
CO
o
Pk
CO CO
MH co J>
O H vH
ft 4J
• 8 -H
O cd co
& V3 0
PM
MH CO
o cu
H
O g
iz; cd
\~-i
0) 0
W)rH
a -^
Ctf r3
M P-l
S
C^J ON *4" P^1* C3
* • • • *
t~H r-» ON oo vo
rH P^ CM
H
O O O O \O
in m o vo oo
rH
rH *^- CM in vO
CM OO CM CO r^.
1-3 m m co H
w . . . .
r4 rH sd- (yi 00
O O I—. -* H
in VQ o1* cr\
o m -* vo rH
rH CM
r-» O vo CM co
rH rH CM
O O
O O
O O O O
-------
GLOSSARY
background samples: Water samples collected on a routine basis, regardless of
rainfall to obtain background information on the microbiol levels in the
urban aquatic environment. In this study, the background samples consisted
of raw sewage, a reservoir and three urban streams.
bleeder: Intentional sanitary sewage overflow from sewage interceptors. The over-
flows are diverted directly ot indirectly into the storm drainage system.
combined sewer: A sewer intended to receive both wastewater and storm ar surface
runoff.
dry weather flow: The flow in storm or sanitary sewers that contains no stormwater.
enterococci: Members of the fecal streptococcal group containing the species S
facoal-Ls and s. faeoium.
F.C.: fecal coliform
first flush: The initial portion of a storm or combined sewer discharge.
F.S.: fecal streptococci
grab sample: A single sample collected at neither a set time or flow.
MPN: Most probable number - that number of microorganisms per unit volume that,
in accordance with stastical theory, would be more likely than any other
number to yield the observed test result. The MPN is generally computed from
the number of positive findings from a multiple - portion - decimal dilution
planting.
stormwater: The water resulting from a precipitation event which may stay on the
land surface, percolate into the ground, runoff into a body of water, enter a
storm-sewer or enter a combined sewer, infiltrate a sanitary sewer or evaporate.
stormwater runoff: The stormwater which flows overland.
T.C: Total coliform
urban stream: A course of running water flowing in a particular direction in definite
channel through an urban area and discharging into some other stream or body of
water.
urban runoff: The stormwater runoff which flow overland through urban areas.
181
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1, REPORT NO.
EPA-600/2-77-087
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
MICROORGANISMS IN URBAN STORMWATER
5. REPORT DATE
July 1977
(Issuing Date)
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
Vincent P. Olivieri,
Kazuyoshi Kawata
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
Cornelius W. Kruse, and
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
The Johns Hopkins University
School of Science & Public Health
Department of Environmental Health
615 N. Wolfe Street, Baltimore. Maryland
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1BC611
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
R802709
21205
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory—Cin.,OH
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268 .
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/14
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Project Officer: Richard Field, (201) 321-6674, (8-340-6674)
16. ABSTRACTMicrobiological quantitative assays of Baltimore City urban runoff were con-
ducted throughout a 12 month period to show the relationships to several factors such
as separate or combined sewer flow, urban characteristics of drainage area, rainfall,
and quantity of flow during and between rain storms. In general, there was a consis-
tently high recovery of both pathogenic and indicator organisms throughout the study '
except for Shigella sp. which is believed to have been present but could not be
isolated due to interferences during the culture procedure. There appeared to be
little relationship between pathogen recovery and season of the year, amount of rain-
fall, period of the antecedent rainfall, and stream flow. The most concentrated
pathogens were Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus at levels ranging from
103 to 105 and from 10° to 103/100ml, respectively. Salmonella and enteroviruses,
though frequently isolated, were found at levels of only W® to loVlO 1 of urban run-
off. The background samples (sewage, urban streams and reservoirs) between storms
gave good positive correlation between indicators and pathogens at a 95 to 99% level
of confidence, whereas, the stormwater had no or poor correlation. The ratios of
indicators, such as FC/FS, gave some indications of pollution by human sewage, but it
was the presence of enteroviruses that definitely showed the mixing of sewage with
rain water, whether in a storm sewer or in the combined sewer overflow. The logical
solution would point to the removal of sanitary sewage overflows rather than the dis-
infection of all urban runoff for removing the health hazard and improving the quality
7.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COS AT I Field/Group
Microorganisms, Bacteria, Viruses, Storm
sewers, Streams, Urban areas
Urban stormwater micro-
organisms, Pathogenic
microorganisms .enumera-
tion
13 B
8. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
RELEASE TO PUBLIC
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport/
UNCLASSIFIED
21. NO. OF PAGES
194
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
UNCLASSIFIED
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
182
U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1977-757-056/6462 Region No. 5-11
-------
-------
-------
-------
0) CO ~» r^.
"•
z
11
-n n
D O
O
70
TJ r
H ± 03
< C
> CO
H -
m
0)
:,,m
O co
m
m
0)
0)
O rn
:* 5
o' <
•H CD 33
CD _ /^i
OO O t-J
:j- -*• Z
o - ^ ^
=• o' ® m
-1 Q3 CO -7
3 _ CD ±j
03 CO "~"
s± 5" 2 >
O
o =r
o i-
Z 3 w 33
o 9i 3 O
2 ?s
Ol
IV)
O> CO
oo S ^
CD —;
•5 z
CD
o
x m
S 5'
O
8 . 8.
"
.
5- CD 9-
CD Co
Cfl
0)
3 1)
o o
2 CO
Siit j!
E.
»J!i(fMii;'i»a:''*c
I I
ID,'
::: - -g
•{; »:;
« s
o
a
m -j m
? ?i
CO T3 O
m
rn
rn (/)
• z
e 5
G)
!Q
iiii
-------