Risk-Based Critical Concentrations of Legionella pneumophila for Indoor Residential Water Uses.

Legionella spp. is a key contributor to the United States waterborne disease burden. Despite potentially widespread exposure, human disease is relatively uncommon, except under circumstances where pathogen concentrations are high, host immunity is low, or exposure to small-diameter aerosols occurs. Water quality guidance values for Legionella are available for building managers but are generally not based on technical criteria. To address this gap, a quantitative microbial risk assessment (QMRA) was conducted using target risk values in order to calculate corresponding critical concentrations on a per-fixture and aggregate (multiple fixture exposure) basis. Showers were the driving indoor exposure risk compared to sinks and toilets. Critical concentrations depended on the dose response model (infection vs clinical severity infection, CSI), risk target used (infection risk vs disability adjusted life years [DALY] on a per-exposure or annual basis), and fixture type (conventional vs water efficient or "green"). Median critical concentrations based on exposure to a combination of toilet, faucet, and shower aerosols ranged from ∼10-2 to ∼100 CFU per L and ∼101 to ∼103 CFU per L for infection and CSI dose response models, respectively. As infection model results for critical L. pneumophila concentrations were often below a feasible detection limit for culture-based assays, the use of CSI model results for nonhealthcare water systems with a 10-6 DALY pppy target (the more conservative target) would result in an estimate of 12.3 CFU per L (arithmetic mean of samples across multiple fixtures and/or over time). Single sample critical concentrations with a per-exposure-corrected DALY target at each conventional fixture would be 1.06 × 103 CFU per L (faucets), 8.84 × 103 CFU per L (toilets), and 14.4 CFU per L (showers). Using a 10-4 annual infection risk target would give a 1.20 × 103 CFU per L mean for multiple fixtures and single sample critical concentrations of 1.02 × 105, 8.59 × 105, and 1.40 × 103 CFU per L for faucets, toilets, and showers, respectively. Annual infection risk-based target estimates are in line with most current guidance documents of less than 1000 CFU per L, while DALY-based guidance suggests lower critical concentrations might be warranted in some cases. Furthermore, approximately <10 CFU per mL L. pneumophila may be appropriate for healthcare or susceptible population settings. This analysis underscores the importance of the choice of risk target as well as sampling program considerations when choosing the most appropriate critical concentration for use in public health guidance.

Health risks from exposure to Legionella in reclaimed water aerosols: Toilet flushing, spray irrigation, and cooling towers.

The use of reclaimed water brings new challenges for the water industry in terms of maintaining water quality while increasing sustainability. Increased attention has been devoted to opportunistic pathogens, especially Legionella pneumophila, due to its growing importance as a portion of the waterborne disease burden in the United States. Infection occurs when a person inhales a mist containing Legionella bacteria. The top three uses for reclaimed water (cooling towers, spray irrigation, and toilet flushing) that generate aerosols were evaluated for Legionella health risks in reclaimed water using quantitative microbial risk assessment (QMRA). Risks are compared using data from nineteen United States reclaimed water utilities measured with culture-based methods, quantitative PCR (qPCR), and ethidium-monoazide-qPCR. Median toilet flushing annual infection risks exceeded 10-4 considering multiple toilet types, while median clinical severity infection risks did not exceed this value. Sprinkler and cooling tower risks varied depending on meteorological conditions and operational characteristics such as drift eliminator performance. However, the greatest differences between risk scenarios were due to 1) the dose response model used (infection or clinical severity infection) 2) population at risk considered (residential or occupational) and 3) differences in laboratory analytical method. Theoretical setback distances necessary to achieve a median annual infection risk level of 10-4 are proposed for spray irrigation and cooling towers. In both cooling tower and sprinkler cases, Legionella infection risks were non-trivial at potentially large setback distances, and indicate other simultaneous management practices could be needed to manage risks. The sensitivity analysis indicated that the most influential factors for variability in risks were the concentration of Legionella and aerosol partitioning and/or efficiency across all models, highlighting the importance of strategies to manage Legionella occurrence in reclaimed water.

The energy expenditure of sedentary behavior: a whole room calorimeter study.

It has recently been recommended that sedentary behavior be defined as sitting or reclining activities expending less than 1.5 metabolic equivalents (METs), which is distinct from the traditional viewpoint based on insufficient moderate-vigorous activity or formal exercise. This study was designed to determine the energy expenditure associated with common sedentary behaviors. Twenty-five African American adults (BMI 27.8 ± 5.5) participated in the metabolic chamber study. Participants entered the metabolic chamber in the morning and their basal metabolic rate was estimated. They were fed breakfast and then engaged in four different sedentary behaviors sequentially, lasting 30 minutes each. The activities included reclining, watching TV, reading, and typing on a computer. In the afternoon, the participants were fed lunch and then the activities were repeated. The results show that the energy expenditure values between the morning and afternoon sessions were not significantly different (p = .232). The mean energy expenditure of postprandial reclining (0.97 METs) was slightly, but significantly, lower than postprandial watching TV (p = .021) and typing (p<.001). There were no differences in energy cost (1.03-1.06 METs) between the seated (i.e., reading, typing, watching TV) sedentary activities. The energy expenditure of several common sedentary behaviors was approximately 1.0 METs in the postprandial state. The results support the conclusion that the average energy cost of common sedentary behaviors is narrowly banded around 1.0 METs in the postprandial state.