Animal Waste, Water Quality and Human Health

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Comparative risk analysis 377Figure 10.2 Image of the ‘user-interface’ of the recreational waterborne microbial risk assessment model, showing the questions, alternativeanswers and risk outputs. Users select answers from the ‘pull down’ menus, which are translated into numerical values used to calculate therisk indices.
378Animal Waste, Water Quality and Human HealthIn some cases the values ascribed are similar to relevant absolute values (e.g.,the ID 50 values used in Question 1; in Question 15 weekly exposure is weightedfour times as heavily as monthly exposure, etc). In other cases the values arerelative to the most extreme value. For example, for Question 5: “continuouscontamination” has a weight of ‘1’, and other frequencies of input/contaminationare weighted relative to that value, for example, “frequent” contamination hasarbitrarily been assigned a value of 0.3, “rare” has been assigned a value 0.001.The relative risk of different scenarios is calculated, essentially, as the simpleproduct of the relative risk from each of the risk-contributing factors explicitlyaddressed in Questions 1 to 16. There are three exceptions, however, where alogical test is also applied. The first relates to assessment of the efficacyestimates of actions taken to reduce contamination of the water resource beingconsidered, and aims to jointly assess the ability of the action to reducecontamination as well as the reliability of the process. The logic involved isdiscussed in detail later, in the sections describing those questions.The second case relates to the possibility that human exposure is, in some way,correlated with contamination events. Question 16 asks the user to comment onwhether correlations, either positive or negative, between contamination eventsand human exposure are possible and to rank these as “possible” or “probable”.If, however, contamination is “continuous” or “frequent” or if exposure is“daily” or more frequent, it is assumed any such correlation is irrelevant becauseexposure frequency and likelihood of contamination are such that there is nearcertainty of exposure to contaminated water and that the relative risk cannot beincreased nor decreased. However when exposure to the water is low andcontamination is rare, the risk will be under-predicted if there is a correlationbetween exposure to the recreational water and contamination, for example, ifcontamination, while rare, were more likely in summer, when people are morelikely to swim. Conversely, if contamination events are rare but are detected insufficient time to alert swimmers prior to the contamination reaching therecreational water, there would be a negative correlation between contaminationevents and exposure.The third use of a logical test, as explained in the next section, is to determine thegreatest hazard potential from pathogens in different animal sources of contamination.10.4.4 The questionsThe following section provides advice on interpretation of the sixteen questions aswell as describing the relative risk weights applied to each of the possibleresponses.
Page 1 and 2:
Emerging Issues in Water and Infect
Page 3 and 4:
World Health Organization and IWA P
Page 5 and 6:
Published on behalf of the World He
Page 7 and 8:
viAnimal Waste, Water Quality and H
Page 9 and 10:
viiiAnimal Waste, Water Quality and
Page 11 and 12:
xAnimal Waste, Water Quality and Hu
Page 13 and 14:
2Animal Waste, Water Quality and Hu
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
10Animal Waste, Water Quality and H
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 84 and 85:
3Zoonotic waterborne pathogen loads
Page 86 and 87:
Zoonotic waterborne pathogen loads
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
the cause of a variety of food- and
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
4Zoonotic waterbornepathogens in li
Page 128 and 129:
Zoonotic waterborne pathogens in li
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
controlling E. coli-associated diar
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
5Transport of microbial pollution i
Page 170 and 171:
Transport of microbial pollution in
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
Page 202 and 203:
Page 204:
Page 207 and 208:
196Animal Waste, Water Quality and
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224:
Page 225 and 226:
Page 227 and 228:
Page 229 and 230:
Page 231 and 232:
Page 233 and 234:
Page 235 and 236:
Page 237 and 238:
Page 239 and 240:
Page 241 and 242:
Page 243 and 244:
Page 245 and 246:
Page 247 and 248:
Page 249 and 250:
Page 251 and 252:
Page 253 and 254:
Page 255 and 256:
Page 257 and 258:
Page 259 and 260:
Page 261 and 262:
Page 263 and 264:
Page 265 and 266:
Page 268 and 269:
7ExposureWill Robertson and Gordon
Page 270 and 271:
Exposure 259main components influen
Page 272 and 273:
Exposure 261rainfall events (Atherh
Page 274 and 275:
Exposure 263contact activities, the
Page 276 and 277:
Exposure 265Table 7.1 Notable studi
Page 278 and 279:
Exposure 267Table 7.2 Notable studi
Page 280 and 281:
Exposure 269water than zoonotic pat
Page 282 and 283:
Exposure 2711999). As suggested by
Page 284 and 285:
Exposure 273leptospirosis is primar
Page 286 and 287:
are severely underreported. As with
Page 288 and 289:
Exposure 277duodenalis in surface w
Page 290 and 291:
Exposure 279Keeley, A. and Faulkner
Page 292:
Exposure 281Schultz-Fademrecht, C.,
Page 295 and 296:
Page 297 and 298:
Page 299 and 300:
Page 301 and 302:
Page 303 and 304:
Page 305 and 306:
Page 307 and 308:
Page 309 and 310:
Page 311 and 312:
Page 313 and 314:
Page 315 and 316:
Page 317 and 318:
Page 319 and 320:
Page 321 and 322:
Page 323 and 324:
Page 325 and 326:
Page 327 and 328:
Page 329 and 330:
Page 331 and 332:
Page 333 and 334:
Page 335 and 336:
Page 337 and 338: 326Animal Waste, Water Quality and
Page 387: 376Animal Waste, Water Quality and
Page 439 and 440:
Page 441 and 442:
Page 443 and 444:
Page 445 and 446:
Page 447 and 448:
Page 449 and 450:
Page 451 and 452:
Page 453 and 454:
Page 455 and 456:
Page 457 and 458:
Page 459 and 460:
Page 461 and 462:
Page 463 and 464:
Page 465 and 466:
Page 467 and 468:
Page 469 and 470:
Page 472 and 473:
IndexAgricultural runoff, 122, 168,
Page 474 and 475:
Index 463Biogas, 137-139, 291Bio-se
Page 476 and 477:
Index 465Critical control points, 1
Page 478 and 479:
Index 467290-291, 293, 295, 300, 30
Page 480 and 481:
Index 469Hazard detection, 285Hazar
Page 482 and 483:
Index 471pathogens, 2, 4-14, 17-21,
Page 484 and 485:
Index 473Probiotics, 132-133Protozo
Page 486 and 487:
Index 475Molecular, 16, 19, 22, 27,
show all

Animal Waste, Water Quality and Human Health

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?