Journal of The Korean Society of Agricultural Engineers (한국농공학회논문집)

The Korean Society of Agricultural Engineers (한국농공학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Quantitative Microbial Risk Assessment of Wastewater Reuse for Irrigation in Paddy Field

하수처리수의 논 관개용수 재이용을 위한 미생물 위해성 평가

  • 윤춘경 (건국대학교 환경과학과) ;
  • 한정윤 (건국대학교 환경과학과 대학원) ;
  • 정광욱 (건국대학교 환경과학과 대학원) ;
  • 장재호 (건국대학교 환경과학과 대학원)
  • Published : 2006.03.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The reuse of wastewater for agricultural irrigation may cause human health risk as a result of exposure to pathogens. This study conducted the quantitative microbial risk assessment in paddy field irrigated with treated wastewater. Six treatments were used to irrigate the paddy field from Year 2003 to Year 2005: biofilter-effluent, UV-disinfected water (6, 16, 40, 68 $mW s cm^{-2}$), pond-treated water, wetland-treated water, conventional irrigation water and tap water. Total coliforms, fecal coliforms and E. coli were monitored during rice growing period. Beta - Poisson model was employed to calculate the microbial risk of pathogens ingestion that may occur to farmers and neighbor children. Uncertainty of risk was estimated using Monte Carlo simulation. In this study, the microbial risk was higher during initial cultivation (end of May$\sim$June), and it decreased with time. Biofilter effluent (secondary effluent) irrigation showed higher risk values than others (>$10^{-4}$) and irrigation with UV-disinfected water has the lowest risk range ($10^{-6}{\sim}10^{-5}$). The risk value estimated in 2005 was lower than risk value in 2003 and 2004, it is likely due to clean tap water irrigation in initial transplanting stage. It is suggested that irrigation with UV-disinfected water and pond-treated water would reduce the microbial risk associated with wastewater irrigation in paddy field. In addition, the first irrigation water quality significantly affected the subsequent microbial risk.

Keywords

References

  1. Ministry of Construction and Transportation. 2001. Water vision 2020
  2. Ministry of Environment. 2000. A comprehensive plan for water saving
  3. APHA. 1998. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater (20th ed.), American Public Health Association, Washington
  4. Asano, T., Leong, L. Y. C., Rigby, M. G. and Sakaji, R. H. 1992. Evaluation of the California wastewater reclamation criteria using enteric virus monitoring data. Water Science and Technology. 26(7-8). pp. 1513-1524 https://doi.org/10.1021/es00032a003
  5. Asano, T. and Sakaji, R. H. 1990. Virus risk analysis in wastewater reclamation and reuse. In: Chemical water and wastewater treatment. Hahn, H. H. and Klute, R. (Eds) Spinger-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg. pp. 483-496
  6. Blumenthal, U. J., Mara, D. D., Peasey, A., Ruiz-Palacios, G. and Stott, R. 2000. Guidelines for the microbiological quality of treated wastewater used in agriculture: recommendations for revising WHO guidelines, Bulletin of the World Health Organization. 78(9), pp. 1104-1116
  7. Blumenthal, U. J., Peasey, A., Quigley, M., Cifuentes, E. and Ruiz-Palacios, C. 1998. Consumer risk from enteric infections and heavy metals trough agricultural reuse of wastewater, Mexco. Final report of project no. R5468 to Department of international development, UK
  8. Blumenthal, U. J., Mara, D. D., Ayres, R. M., Cifuentes, E., Peasey, A., Stott, R., Lee, D. L. and Ruiz-Palacios, G. 1996. Evaluation of the WHO nematode egg guidelines for restricted and unrestricted irrigation. Water Science and Technology. 33(10-11). pp, 277-283 https://doi.org/10.1016/0273-1223(96)00430-1
  9. Camann, D. E. and Moore, B. E. Viral infection based on clinical sampling at a spray irrigation site. In: Implementing water reuse. AWWA Research Foundation 847
  10. Cifuentes, E. 1998. The epidemiology of enteric infections in agricultural communities exposed to wastewater irrigation: perspectives for risk control. International Journal of Environmental Health Research. 8. pp. 203-213 https://doi.org/10.1080/09603129873480
  11. Dowd, S. E., Gerbaud, L., Planchon, C., Pepper, I. L. and Pillai, S. D. 2000. Bioaerosol transport modeling and risk assessment in relation to biosolid placement. Journal of Environmental Quality. 26. pp. 194-199 https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq1997.00472425002600010028x
  12. Fattal, B., Wax, Y., Davies, M. and Shuval, H. I. 1986. Health risk associated with wastewater irrigation: an epidemiological study. American Journal of Public Health. 76. pp. 977-980 https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.76.8.977
  13. Gardner, T., Chinivasagam, N., Rao, A., Vieritz, A., BalckalI, P., Rynne, F., Tomas, R., Klieve, A., Blaney, B., Green, P. and Barry, G. 1998. Quantifying the health risk of spray irrigation treated sewage effluent. Water Technology '98, Australian Water and Wastewater Association, Brisbane
  14. Haas, C. N., Rose, J. B., Gerba, C. and Regli, S. 1993. Risk assessment of virus in drinking water. Risk Analysis. 13. pp. 545-552 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1993.tb00013.x
  15. Jung, K. W., Yoon, C.G., An, Y-J., Jang, J. H. and Jeon, J. H. 2005. Microbial. risk assessment in treated wastewater irrigation on paddy rice plot. Korean Journal of Limnology. 38(2). pp. 225-236
  16. Jung, K. W., Yoon, C. G., Hwang, H. S. and Ham, J. H. 2003. Disinfection and reactivation of microorganisms after UV irradiation for agricultural water reuse of biofilter effluent. Journal of Korean Society on Water Quality. 45(7). pp. 94-106
  17. Macler, B. A. and Regil, S. 1993. Use of microbial risk assessment in setting US drinking water standards, Int. J. Food Microbiol. 18. pp. 245-256 https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1605(93)90148-A
  18. Nwachukul, N. and Gerb, C. P. 2004. Microbial risk assessment: don't forget the children. Curr. Opin Microb. 7. pp. 206-209 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mib.2004.04.011
  19. Peasey, A., Blumenthal, U. J., Mara. D., and Ruiz-Palacios, G. 2000. WELL study: A review of policy and standards for wastewater reuse in agriculture: a Lain American perspective. 68(2). pp, 15-18
  20. Petterson, S. R., Teunis P. F. M. and Ashbolt, N. J. 2001(a). Modeling virus inactivation on salad crops using microbial count data, Risk Analysis. 21. pp, 1097-1107 https://doi.org/10.1111/0272-4332.216178
  21. Petterson, S. R. Ashbolt, N. J and Sharma, A. 2001(a). Microbial risks from wastewater irrigation of salad crops: A screening-level risk assessment. Water Environment Research. 73(6). pp. 667-672 https://doi.org/10.2175/106143001X143402
  22. Storey, M. V. and Ashbolt, N. J. 2002. A risk model for enteric virus accumulation and release from reuse water biofilms. Presented at the IWA 3rd World Water congress, Melbourne, 7-12, April, IWA Publishing
  23. Tanaka, H., Asano, T., Schroeder, E. D. and Tchobanoglous, G. 1998. Estimating the safety of wastewater reclamation and reuse using enteric virus monitoring data. Water Environment Research. 70(1). pp. 39-51 https://doi.org/10.2175/106143098X126874
  24. USEPA. 1992. Guidelines for water reuse, Washington, DC, EPA 625/R-92/004
  25. WHO. 2000. Guidelines for the microbiological quality of treated wastewater used in agriculture recommendations for revising WHO guidelines: Special Theme-Environment and Health
  26. Yoon, C. G., Jang, J. H., Jung, K. W. and Ham, J. H. 2004. Feasibility study of wetland-pond system for water quality improvement and agricultural reuse. Korean Journal of Limnology. 37(3). pp. 344-354
  27. Yoon, C. G., Jung, K. W., Jean, J. H. and Ham, J. H. 2003. Guidelines and Optimum Treatment for Agriculture Reuse of Reclaimed Water. Korean Journal of Limnology. 36(3), pp. 356-368
  28. Yoon, C. G., Jung, K. W., Ham, J. H. and Jeon, J. H. 2003. Feasibility Study of Natural Systems for Sewage Treatment and Agricultural Reuse. Journal of the Korean Society of Agricultural Engineers. 45(6). pp. 194-206

Cited by

  1. Statistics and Probability Distribution of Total Coliforms in Wastewater vol.55, pp.3, 2013, https://doi.org/10.5389/KSAE.2013.55.3.105
  2. Irrigation Water Quality Standards for Indirect Wastewater Reuse in Agriculture: A Contribution toward Sustainable Wastewater Reuse in South Korea vol.8, pp.12, 2016, https://doi.org/10.3390/w8040169