Pathogen Transport in Watersheds

1
Pathogen Transport in Watersheds

• Kyle R. Mankin
• Associate Professor
• Biological and Agricultural Engineering
• Kansas State University
• Heartland Animal Manure Management Workshop,
  April 4-5, 2006
• Lied Lodge and Conference Center, Nebraska City,
  Nebraska

2
Pathogen Watershed Issues

• Waterborne illnessU.S. 940,000 annually, from
  all microbes (USDA, 2003)
• Waterborne disease outbreaksU.S. 1,100 in
  1971-2000 (CDC)
• Pathogen TMDLs U.S. 3,833 (20 of total)KS
  405 (15 of total)NE 74 (32 of total)IA 38
  (14 of total) MO 6 (2 of total)

3
Pathogen Watershed IssuesTMDL Process in Kansas
E. coli criteria

• Primary contact (swimming)
• GM 262 cfu/100mL(Apr 1 Oct 31)
• GM 1310 cfu/100mL(Nov 1 Mar 31)
• Secondary contact (wading)
• GM 1310 cfu/100mL(Nov 1 Mar 31)
• GM 2135 cfu/100mL (Jan 1 Dec 31)

• Concentration x Stream Flow Rate Load
• Load plotted against flow frequency of exceedance
• NPS pollution implicated for flow rates with
  10-70 probability of exceedance

4
Overview

• Pathogen Sources
• Pathogen Transport
• Pathogen Watershed Issues

5
Pathogen Sources

• Fecal pathogens may originate from humans,
  livestock, wildlife, pets
• Disease outbreaks
• Humans health issue
• Livestock loss of production

6
Pathogen SourcesIndicator Bacteria

• Presence indicates fecal contamination
• Total coliforms
• Fecal coliforms
• E. coli
• Fecal streptococci
• Measurement
• Easier to detect than pathogen
• Units colony forming units (cfu)

A colony
7
Pathogen SourcesIndicators vs. Pathogens
8
Pathogen Sources Presence and infectivity
9
Pathogen SourcesPresence rules of thumb

• Raw manure (ASABE Standard) (cfu/g)
• FC 5 x106 (beef) 2 x106 (dairy) 2 x104 (layer)
• FS 5 x106 (beef) 1 x107 (dairy) 1 x107 (layer)
• ? 1 pound of manure has gt1 billion cfu of each
  FC, FS
• Runoff from concrete feedlots (Miner et al.,
  1966) (cfu/100 mL)
• FC 72 x106 (beef)
• FS 324 x106 (beef)
• ? 1 gallon of runoff water has gt1 billion cfu of
  each FC, FS

10
Pathogen Sources Characteristics
11
Pathogen Sources Survival

• References
• Jenkins, M.B. and D.B. Bowman. 2004. Viability
  of pathogens in the environment. In Pathogens in
  the Environment.
• Berry, E., D. Miller, V. Varel, J. Wells. B.
  Woodbury. 2004. Treatment of Livestock Waste.
  Ibid.
• Wang, L., K.R. Mankin, G.L. Marchin. 2004.
  Survival of fecal bacteria in dairy cow manure.
  Trans. ASAE 47(4) 1239-1246.
• ASABE Standards. 2005. www.asabe.org

12
Pathogen Sources Bacterial Source Tracking (BST)

• Antibiotic Resistance Analysis (ARA)
• Differences in antibiotic exposure causes
  patterns of antibiotic resistance in bacterial
  flora among animals
• ARA may represent a compromise between classic
  procedures and a more affordable approach

ARA Reference Hagedorn et al. (1999)

• Common BST Methods
• Molecular BST (genotypic)
• Amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP)
• Ribotyping
• PCR, qPCR
• Biochemical BST (phenotypic)
• ARA (antibiotic resistance patterns)
• BIOLOG (C sources)

13
Pathogen Sources Antibiotic Resistance Analysis
(ARA)

• ARA Method
• Fecal streptococci isolates are exposed to five
  concentrations of nine antibiotics
• Responses of unknown samples are compared to
  known fecal streptococcus source isolates from
  human, livestock, wildlife, and urban pets
• Isolate Enterococci from known animal sources.
• Determine their resistance to a variety of
  antibiotics.
• Isolate Enterococcus (unknowns) from water
  samples.
• Determine their resistance to the same
  antibiotics and using discriminant analysis
  assign a source to them.

Kansas StudyNelson (2002)
14
Pathogen Sources Human Onsite Wastewater Systems

• National Picture
• 26.5 Million Households, 23
• 60 Million people businesses
• 1 of 3 New Homes Built
• Over Half of all Mobile Homes
• Discharge 4 Billion gpd

15
Pathogen Sources Human Onsite Wastewater Systems
Regional Picture ( households)
Regional Picture ( failures)
www.vdh.state.va.us/onsite/album/Failpics.htm
16
Pathogen Sources Human Onsite Wastewater Systems
Regional Picture ( failures)
www.vdh.state.va.us/onsite/album/Failpics.htm
17
Pathogen Sources Wildlife

• Locations
• Forest, Riparian areas
• Cropland
• Grazing land
• Residential areas
• Can be higher than surrounding areas!

• Types
• Large mammals (deer, etc.)
• Small mammals (raccoons, opossum, fox, etc.)
• Indigenous birds (turkey, etc.)
• Migratory birds (geese, ducks, cranes, etc.)

18
Pathogen Sources Livestock Confined Systems
(CAFO, AFO)

• Feedlot runoff
• Containment systems minimize direct discharges
• Wastewater must be disposed (typically by
  irrigation)
• Feedlot solid waste
• Land application

19
Pathogen Sources Livestock/Cropland Land
Application (solid, liquid)

• Contaminated runoff from land application area
  (crop, hay)
• Survival following land application
• 2 months (common) to 1 year (maximum) (Ferguson
  et al., 2003)
• Factors soil type, moisture, pH, temperature,
  OM, sunlight, salt, incorporation, native
  microbes

20
Pathogen Sources Livestock Grazing Systems

• Direct source to stream
• Cattle access stream for water, shelter
• Overland source from runoff
• Accelerated by land-cover disturbance from
  overgrazing

Poor Ground Cover
Good Ground Cover
21
Pathogen Transport

• Excretion from infected animal in manure
• Inactivation in manure
• Release from manure
• Overland Transport (planktonic or sorbed) with
  runoff/infiltrated water
• Sorption/Straining in soil/stream bed
• Inactivation in soil/bed (and treatment systems)
  between events
• Resuspension from soil/bed to runoff/stream
• Stream Transport with runoff/baseflow

• Contamination often after runoff events
• Good correlation precipitation vs. outbreaks
  (U.S.) (Ferguson et al., 2003)
• 50 of water-borne disease outbreaks preceded by
  rain events (Florida) (Shehane et al., 2005)

22
Pathogen Transport
Detention
23
Pathogen Transport SWAT Bacterial Submodel
enter stream
(Sadeghi and Arnold, 2002Parajuli et al., 2005)
exit basin
Sed-attach die-off
Stream sed. die-off
VFS
Stream sediment
tillage
land applied
Surface
Erosion
Outlet
Soil
partition
tillage
X
Subsurface
enter stream
Manure applied
exit basin
Stream soln die-off
Soln die-off
VFS
Stream Flow
tillage
partition
Outlet
Surface
Runoff
Soln
Soln die-off
X
tillage
Infiltration
X
Subsurface
X ? once bacteria leave surface layer into soil,
no further transport
NOTE Model persistent (e.g., entercocci) and
nonpersistent (e.g., coliform) bacteria
separately
24
Pathogen Transport Dieoff in Dairy Manure

• Initial population growth
• E. coli and FS increased during the first 3-10
  days
• Overall reductions
• E. coli Significant reductions (after 3 weeks or
  less)
• YES Temperature (41 ºC gt 4 ºC gt 27 ºC)
• NO Moisture
• FS No reductions (after 3 months)
• FCFS Ratio
• FC and FS dieoff differ Ratio changes with time
• Contamination potential
• Substantial availability of E. coli and FS for gt
  3 months
• consistent with other studies
• Further research needed
• Other microbes/pathogens

(Wang et al., 2004)
25
Pathogen Transport Infiltration and Trapping in
Soil

• Infiltration Soil removed gt99.999 E. coli in
  top 10 cm
• Infiltration traps most bacteria (5-8 log
  reduction)
• Includes sorption straining
• Sorption (of E. coli) to soil
• Clay Loam YES (gt99) Sand NO (lt5)
• Soil has very high sorption capacity
• Clay Loam (20 clay) 2x1013 clay particles /
  g100,000 billion cfu in 1 g of clay particles
• From other studies
• Sorption (of E. coli) to manure
• Might form colloid that resists sorption to soil
  particles
• Enhance E. coli movement through soil?
• Further research needed
• Other physical, chemical, biological factors
• Other microbes/pathogens

(Wang et al., 2003)
26
Pathogen Transport Removal in Grass VFS Treating
Feedlot Runoff

• Rule-of-thumb
• VFS area gt 0.5-1.0 x Feedlot area
• Infiltration
• Key process for bacteria removal
• 1-log reduction in fecal bacteria
• Bacteria removal similar to removal of water
  (infiltration) and sediment (sedimentation)
• Not zero discharge
• Must be coupled with other structures (basins,
  ponds, lagoons, wetlands)
• 1-log reduction common for these systems

(Mankin et al., 2006 Okoren and Mankin, 2004)
27
Pathogen Transport Removal in Constructed Wetlands

• Reasonably effective for removing fecal bacteria
  from water
• E. coli reductions 0.5-1.3 log (68-95)
• FS reductions 0-1.2 log (0-94)
• Zooplankton differences not related to bacteria
  differences
• 1-log reduction common for these systems

(Molder and Mankin, in review)
28
Pathogen Transport Grazing Systems Management

• Locate water source away from stream
• Oregon study 80 effective in moving cattle away
  from stream
• California study 90 effective in reducing
  manure in stream
• Cattle get clean water (healthier and more gains?)

29
Pathogen Transport Grazing Systems Management

• Feed away from stream
• Rotate grazing

Poor Ground Cover
Good Ground Cover
30
Pathogen Transport Watershed modeling

• Preliminary results hopeful
• Future work
• More stream calibration data
• Link calibration to BST
• Better source load inputs
• Better parameter calibration

(Parajuli et al., 2005)
31
Pathogen Transport in Watersheds

• Kyle R. Mankin
• Associate Professor
• Biological and Agricultural Engineering
• Kansas State University
• Heartland Animal Manure Management Workshop,
  April 4-5, 2006
• Lied Lodge and Conference Center, Nebraska City,
  Nebraska

32
Pathogen Sources, Fate, Transport References

• Berry, E., D. Miller, V. Varel, J. Wells. B.
  Woodbury. 2004. Treatment of Livestock Waste. In
  Pathogens in the Environment.
• Ferguson et al., 2003. Fate and transport of
  surface water pathogens in watershed. Critical
  Rev. Env. Sci. Technol. 33(3) 299-361.
• Hagedorn, C., S.L. Robinson, J.R. Filtz, S.M.
  Grubbs, T.A. Angier, and R.B. Renau. 1999.
  Determining sources of fecal pollution in a rural
  Virginia watershed with antibiotic resistance
  patterns in fecal streptococci. Appl. Environ.
  Microbiol. 65 5522-5531.
• Jenkins, M.B. and D.B. Bowman. 2004. Viability
  of pathogens in the environment. In Pathogens in
  the Environment.
• Nelson, K. 2000. PhD Dissertation. Division of
  Biology, Kansas State Univ., Manhattan, KS.
• Parajuli, P. K.R. Mankin, P.L. Barnes. 2005.
  Calibration and validation of SWAT/microb ial
  submodel fecal coliform bacteria prediction on a
  grazed watershed. ASAE Annual Meeting.
• Payment et al., 2000.
• Sadeghi, A.M. and J.G. Arnold. 2002. A
  SWAT/Microbial Sub-Model for Predicting Pathogen
  Loadings in Surface and Groundwater at Watershed
  and Basin Scales. In Proceedings of the Total
  Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Environmental
  Regulations Conference, March 11-13, Fort Worth,
  TX. pp. 56-63. ASAE St. Joseph, MI.
• Shehan et al., 2005. The influence of rainfall on
  the incidence of microbial fecael indicators and
  the dominant sources of faecal pollution in a
  Florida river. J. Appl. Microbiol 98 1127-1136.
• USDA. 2003.
• Wang, L., K.R. Mankin, and G.L. Marchin. 2004.
  Survival of fecal bacteria in dairy cow manure.
  Transactions of the ASAE 47(4) 1239-1246.