journal article·2020-09-18Open access

Fecal Indicator Bacteria Transport from Watersheds with Differing Wastewater Technologies and Septic System Densities

Guy Iverson, Christa Sanderford, Charles P. Humphrey, J. Randall Etheridge, Timothy Kelley

Applied Sciences· Volume 10· Issue 18

Abstract

Wastewater contains elevated concentrations of fecal indicator bacteria (FIB). The type of wastewater treatment technology and septic system density may influence the FIB concentration and exports at the watershed scale. The goal of this study was to gain a better understanding of FIB concentrations and exports from watersheds served by conventional septic (CS) systems, sand filter (SF) septic systems, and a municipal sewer (SEW) system. Seven watersheds (3 CS, 3 SF, and 1 SEW) were monitored to quantify FIB concentration and export monthly from April 2015 to March 2016. The type of wastewater treatment did not yield significant differences in FIB concentration or exports when pooling watersheds using similar wastewater treatment. Watersheds with the highest septic densities (approximately 0.4 systems ha−1) contained greater FIB concentrations and exports than watersheds with the lowest (approximately 0.1–0.2 systems ha−1), but only FIB concentrations significantly differed. These findings suggest that when the septic system density exceeds 0.4 systems ha−1, water quality degradation from septic leachate may be observable at the watershed scale, especially in watersheds dominated by residential development. More research is recommended to determine if this density threshold is similar for other water pollutants and/or in watersheds with differing hydrogeological, land use, and wastewater characteristics.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Fecal contamination and water quality · Urban Stormwater Management Solutions · Soil and Water Nutrient Dynamics

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Environmental Health Sciences Program, Department Health Education & Promotion, East Carolina University, Carol Belk Building, Mail Stop 529, Greenville, NC 27858, USA

Shellfish Sanitation Program, Division of Marine Fisheries, NC Department Environmental Quality, 3441 Arendell St., Morehead City, NC 28557, USA

Department of Engineering, Center for Sustainable Energy and Environmental Engineering, East Carolina University, Rivers Building, Greenville, NC 27858, USA

Funding

North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality 319 Non-Point Source Program

References (49)

Show source-provided references
1. US EPA (2020, August 18). National Summary of Impaired Waters and TMDL Information, Available online: https://iaspub.epa.gov/waters10/attains_nation_cy.control?p_report_type=T.
2. US CDC (2020, August 18). Recreational Water Illnesses, Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/healthywater/swimming/swimmers/rwi.html.
3. Pathogens in Water: Value and Limits of Correlation with Microbial Indicators10.1111/j.1745-6584.2010.00710.x ↗
4. USGS (2020, August 18). Bacteria and E. coli in Water, Available online: https://www.usgs.gov/special-topic/water-science-school/science/bacteria-and-e-coli-water?qt-science_center_objects=0#qt-science_center_objects.
5. US EPA (2020, August 18). Recreational Water Quality Criteria and Methods, Available online: https://www.epa.gov/wqc/recreational-water-quality-criteria-and-methods.
6. Modeling Fecal Indicator Bacteria Concentrations in Natural Surface Waters: A Review10.1080/10643389.2013.829978 ↗
7. Microbial load from animal feces at a recreational beach10.1016/j.marpolbul.2009.07.003 ↗
8. Spatiotemporal variation of bacterial water quality and the relationship with pasture land cover10.2166/wh.2017.101 ↗
9. NC DEQ (2020, August 18). Nutrient Sensitive Waters and Special Watersheds, Available online: https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/energy-mineral-land-resources/nsw-special-watersheds.
10. A public health perspective on onsite wastewater systems
11. Contributions to enhancing the public health perspective on onsite wastewater management
12. Shellfishing Closures in Southwest Brunswick County, North Carolina: Septic Tanks vs. Storm-Water Runoff as Fecal Coliform Sources10.2112/03-0028.1 ↗
13. Evaluation of Water Quality Impacts of On-site Treatment and Disposal Systems on Urban Coastal Waters10.1007/s11270-008-9630-2 ↗
14. Pollutant impacts to Cape Hatteras National Seashore from urban runoff and septic leachate10.1016/j.marpolbul.2012.04.025 ↗
15. Influence of Sewered Versus Septic Systems on Watershed Exports of E. coli10.1007/s11270-017-3426-1 ↗
16. Concentrations and Exports of Fecal Indicator Bacteria in Watersheds with Varying Densities of Onsite Wastewater Systems10.1007/s11270-018-3929-4 ↗
17. Evidence of septic system failure determined by a bacterial biochemical fingerprinting method10.1111/j.1365-2672.2004.02522.x ↗
18. Wastewater Renovation in Buried and Recirculating Sand Filters10.2134/jeq1992.00472425002100040030x ↗
19. Sand filters for removal of microbes and nutrients from wastewater during a one-year pilot study in a cold temperate climate10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.12.008 ↗
20. Evaluation of the distribution of fecal indicator bacteria in a river system depending on different types of land use in the southern watershed of the Baltic Sea
21. Multiple modes of water quality impairment by fecal contamination in a rapidly developing coastal area: Southwest Brunswick County, North Carolina10.1007/s10661-015-5081-6 ↗
22. Cahoon. Risks to Coastal Wastewater Collection Systems from Sea-Level Rise and Climate Change
23. Impacts of a raw sewage spill on water and sediment quality in an urbanized estuary10.1016/j.marpolbul.2006.09.003 ↗
24. Evaluating the influence of septic systems and watershed characteristics on stream faecal pollution in suburban watersheds in Georgia, USA10.1111/jam.12614 ↗
25. US Census (2020, August 18). Annual Estimates of the Resident Population for Counties in the United States: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2019 (CO-EST2019-ANNRES), Available online: https://data.census.gov/cedsci.
26. NC DEQ (2020, August 18). 2018 North Carolina 303(d) List of Impaired Waters, Available online: https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/Water%20Quality/Planning/TMDL/303d/2018/2018-NC-303-d--List-Final.pdf.
27. UNRBA (2020, August 18). Lick Creek Watershed Restoration Plan, Available online: https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/Mitigation%20Services/Watershed_Planning/Neuse_River_Basin/Lick_Creek/UNRBA_Lick%20Creek_LWP.pdf.
28. City of Durham (2020, August 18). Little Lick Creek Watershed Plan, Available online: https://durhamnc.gov/960/Little-Lick-Creek-Watershed-Improvement-.
29. USDA (2020, August 18). Web Soil Survey, Available online: https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm.
30. Rantz, S.E. (1982). Measurement and Computation of Streamflow: Volume 1. Measurement of Stage and Discharge, USGS Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2175.
31. Housing Density and Bacterial Loading in Urban Streams10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9372(1999)125:12(1177) ↗
32. Fecal-indicator bacteria in streams along a gradient of residential development10.1111/j.1752-1688.2002.tb01550.x ↗
33. Temporal variations of Escherichia coli concentrations in a large Midwestern river10.1016/j.jhydrol.2008.11.029 ↗
34. R Core Team (2020, September 17). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Available online: https://www.r-project.org/.
35. Statistical Evaluation of Factors Affecting Indicator Bacteria in Urban Storm-Water Runoff10.1061/(ASCE)EE.1943-7870.0000278 ↗
36. The impact of sediment fecal coliform reservoirs on seasonal water quality in Oak Creek, Arizona10.1016/S0043-1354(98)00437-0 ↗
37. Influence of seasonal and inter-annual hydro-meteorological variability on surface water fecal coliform concentration under varying land-use composition10.1016/j.watres.2013.09.031 ↗
38. Anderson, C.W.S.A. (2003). Rounds. Phosphorus and E. coli and Their Relation to Selected Constituents During Storm Runoff Conditions in Fanno Creek, Oregon, 1998–99, USGS.
39. Kubera, Ł., Małecka-Adamowicz, M., Jankowiak, E., Dembowska, E., Perliński, P., and Hejze, K. (2019). Influence of Environmental and Anthropogenic Factors on Microbial Ecology and Sanitary Threat in the Final Stretch of the Brda River. Water, 11.10.3390/w11050922 ↗
40. Spatial-Temporal Changes of Bacterioplankton Community along an Exhorheic River10.3389/fmicb.2016.00250 ↗
41. Seasonal variability of faecal indicator bacteria numbers and die-off rates in the Red River basin, North Viet Nam10.1038/srep21644 ↗
42. Water Quality Assessment and Analysis of Spatial Patterns and Temporal Trends10.2175/106143013X13596524516347 ↗
43. Land use and hydroclimatic influences on Faecal Indicator Organisms in two large Scottish catchments: Towards land use-based models as screening tools10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.11.090 ↗
44. Monitoring source water for microbial contamination: Evaluation of water quality measures10.1016/j.watres.2007.05.004 ↗
45. Groundwater quality impacts from the land application of treated municipal wastewater in a large karstic spring basin: Chemical and microbiological indicators10.1016/j.scitotenv.2009.01.022 ↗
46. Hydrologic Impacts of Municipal Wastewater Irrigation to a Temperate Forest Watershed10.2134/jeq2015.11.0577 ↗
47. The Influence of Urban Density and Drainage Infrastructure on the Concentrations and Loads of Pollutants in Small Streams10.1007/s00267-004-0221-8 ↗
48. Landers, M.N., and Paul, D. (2008). Ankcorn. Methods to Evaluate Influence of Onsite Septic Wastewater-Treatment Systems on Base Flow in Selected Watersheds in Gwinnett County, Georgia, October 2007, U.S. Geological Survey.10.3133/sir20085220 ↗
49. Using chloride and other ions to trace sewage and road salt in the Illinois Waterway10.1016/j.apgeochem.2010.01.020 ↗