No subject
Fri Oct 12 15:41:10 EDT 2007
Humans, not cows, were responsible for the fecal contamination of one =
Kansas river.
The antibiotic resistance of bugs in feces gives away its origin.=20
Story by Jesse Truesdale=20
There's poop in the upper Arkansas River, and Tom Willson wanted to know =
who did it: people, livestock or wildlife.=20
Willson, an environmental scientist and assistant professor at Kansas =
State University's Southwest Research-Extension Center in Garden City, =
tracked down the source by testing water samples for bacteria that are =
resistant to different antibiotics.=20
Willson's study concluded that humans contributed most to the Arkansas =
River's fecal contamination through a wastewater treatment plant and =
storm drain in Garden City.=20
He presented his findings at the recent 21st Annual Water and the Future =
of Kansas Conference held in Lawrence.=20
All warm-blooded animals play host to the same kinds of bacteria in =
their intestines. But because livestock and humans are each treated with =
different antibiotics, the bacteria in each show different levels of =
resistance to the same antibiotics.=20
These differences in resistance, which persist in feces, are what =
Willson used to identify the Ark River contamination as coming from =
either humans or animals.=20
Human feces poses the greater risk of creating waterborne illness, =
Willson said. This is because these bacteria are specialized to attack =
the human immune system, Willson said.=20
George Marchin, professor of microbiology at Kansas State, said the city =
of Wichita has worked with him in tracking fecal contamination of the =
Arkansas River since bacteria levels forced cancellation of its 2001 =
River Festival.=20
Marchin uses the same method as Willson for identifying sources of fecal =
contamination.=20
The Environmental Protection Agency does not require municipalities to =
track fecal contaminants in streams and rivers, said Charles Hagendorn =
Ill., professor of crop soil and environmental science at Virginia =
Polytechnic Institute.=20
But many U.S. communities have already begun tracking the contaminants =
just to get ahead of the game, he said. He also said communities in 17 =
or 18 states use the same method Willson uses to track fecal =
contamination.=20
Hagendorn was a pioneer in tracking pollution with this method, called =
antibiotic resistance analysis, or ARA. Previously, the Center for =
Disease Control has used it to track the spread of communicable =
diseases.=20
Hagedorn said there were about 20 other methods for tracking fecal =
contamination, but ARA was one of the most cost efficient. To test =
around a cup of water costs about $240 using ARA and can be done by an =
undergraduate student with only a couple weeks training.=20
Other methods can require sending samples to a corporate lab and can =
cost as much as $2,040 a sample to test, Hagedorn said.=20
Edited by Roger Martin
from University of Kansas Research Center
------=_NextPart_000_063D_01C43CD4.E2A1BBC0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1264" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><FONT size=3D2>
<P>From Whence the Waste?</P>
<P></P>
<P>Humans, not cows, were responsible for the fecal contamination of one =
Kansas=20
river.</P>
<P></P>
<P>The antibiotic resistance of bugs in feces gives away its origin. =
</P>
<P>Story by Jesse Truesdale </P>
<P>There=92s poop in the upper Arkansas River, and Tom Willson wanted to =
know who=20
did it: people, livestock or wildlife. </P>
<P>Willson, an environmental scientist and assistant professor at Kansas =
State=20
University=92s Southwest Research-Extension Center in Garden City, =
tracked down=20
the source by testing water samples for bacteria that are resistant to =
different=20
antibiotics. </P>
<P>Willson=92s study concluded that humans contributed most to the =
Arkansas=20
River=92s fecal contamination through a wastewater treatment plant and =
storm drain=20
in Garden City. </P>
<P>He presented his findings at the recent 21st Annual Water and the =
Future of=20
Kansas Conference held in Lawrence. </P>
<P>All warm-blooded animals play host to the same kinds of bacteria in =
their=20
intestines. But because livestock and humans are each treated with =
different=20
antibiotics, the bacteria in each show different levels of resistance to =
the=20
same antibiotics. </P>
<P>These differences in resistance, which persist in feces, are what =
Willson=20
used to identify the Ark River contamination as coming from either =
humans or=20
animals. </P>
<P>Human feces poses the greater risk of creating waterborne illness, =
Willson=20
said. This is because these bacteria are specialized to attack the human =
immune=20
system, Willson said. </P>
<P>George Marchin, professor of microbiology at Kansas State, said the =
city of=20
Wichita has worked with him in tracking fecal contamination of the =
Arkansas=20
River since bacteria levels forced cancellation of its 2001 River =
Festival. </P>
<P>Marchin uses the same method as Willson for identifying sources of =
fecal=20
contamination. </P>
<P>The Environmental Protection Agency does not require municipalities =
to track=20
fecal contaminants in streams and rivers, said Charles Hagendorn Ill., =
professor=20
of crop soil and environmental science at Virginia Polytechnic =
Institute. </P>
<P>But many U.S. communities have already begun tracking the =
contaminants just=20
to get ahead of the game, he said. He also said communities in 17 or 18 =
states=20
use the same method Willson uses to track fecal contamination. </P>
<P>Hagendorn was a pioneer in tracking pollution with this method, =
called=20
antibiotic resistance analysis, or ARA. Previously, the Center for =
Disease=20
Control has used it to track the spread of communicable diseases. </P>
<P>Hagedorn said there were about 20 other methods for tracking fecal=20
contamination, but ARA was one of the most cost efficient. To test =
around a cup=20
of water costs about $240 using ARA and can be done by an undergraduate =
student=20
with only a couple weeks training. </P>
<P>Other methods can require sending samples to a corporate lab and can =
cost as=20
much as $2,040 a sample to test, Hagedorn said. </P>
<P>Edited by Roger Martin</P>
<P>from University of Kansas Research=20
Center</P></FONT></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_063D_01C43CD4.E2A1BBC0--
More information about the Sludgewatch-l
mailing list