Italianproposal
Furtherresearch or assessment
“Bacterialindicators are notpathogenic, henceconcentrationsatwhich the gastroenteritis rate began to increase in the epidemiologicalstudiesreflectedcriticalconcentrations of one or more pathogens simultaneouslypresentin the water. However, itishighlyunlikelythat the ratio of indicator bacteria topathogenswasidentical in every bathingsites under study. Thisratio wasrather an average of allbathingsitesparticipating in the epidemiologicalstudies, whichimpliedthatsometimes a certainconcentration of indicatorbacteriacomplying with the Directive mightactuallycorrespond to a concentration ofpathogensconsiderednotacceptable. For thosecasesitwasfeltthat an indicatorwasneededwhichwas more representative for pathogenicvirusesthanE. coli or intestinalenterococci”. (from the introduction of the documentsummarizing the mainoutcome of Virobathe).
VIROBATHE hasshownthat the idea of usingvirusesas an indicator of pollution and as a validparameter in a Bathing Water Directive hasmoved from the "conceptual" at the beginning of the Project through the "possible" (feasibility of the analysis in lab and common in bathingwaters ). Yet,… the next stage is to move from "feasible" to "operational", where quantitative determinations of target viruses (probablyadenoviruses) will be reconciled with levels of knownfaecalindicators (probablyenterococci) so thatmeaningfuldiscussions on the formulation of a viralparameterbased on sound scientific data can be held.
EPIBATHE conclusions:……
Thisanalysissuggestedthattherewasbroadcorrespondencebetween the attributablerisksassumed in deriving the current WHO and EU standards with thatcalculatedusing the new information derived from the Epibatheproject.
The new researchhasnot, therefore, produced a clearevidence-base whichwouldsuggestthat a revision of the water qualitycriteriaoutlined in Annex 1 of the 2006 Bathing Water Directive should be undertaken.
6. The risksattributable to bathing in freshwaterswerelessmarkedthan in marine water environments. Thissuggeststhat a differential in standardsapplied to bothenvironments, asisevident in the 2006 Bathing Water Directive, issupported by the available and newlyderivedevidence.
On the basisalso of thesetwoconclusions, itisimportant to furtherdevelopstudies in this area, buttheydo notrepresent an area of high priority. Moreover, weknowthatbacterialindicatorshavelimits in representingpathogenicvirusesbutalsoentericprotozoa, especially in inlandwaters(Criptosporidium, etc).
E.coli (in inlandwaters) and intestinalenterococci (in seawaters) are generallygoodindicators of the quality of bathingwaters. We are awarethat the ratiosbetweentheirconcentrations and those of pathogenicmicrorganisms are variable in the diverse bathingwaters and conditionsbutcurrentlyitisverydifficult to sayhowthis ratio can be improved. A possiblesolutionmight be that in specificcases, in endemicareas or in occasion of outbreakscaused by a knownpathogenicagent, thislatter should be monitored in addition to bacterialindicators, in order to protectbathers’ health.
One of the mostimportanttool of the directiveaimedatprotecting human healthis the prediction of dangerousexposuresassociated to STP. STP ispredictedsimplyon the basis of the entity of rainfalls, information of failuresatthe wastewater treatment plants, butalso with modeling. Bathers are advised, the exposureisprevented. Yet the problemishow to verifythat a STP isactuallyoccurring in order to take a properdecision, withoutoverestimatingor underestimating the event, with economiclosses or healthimplications.
Thereis a need of asimpletoolthatca mayprovidein real time the possibility of verifingwhether or not a STP isactuallyoccurringwouldpractically help the decisionmakers. Severalparametersmightprovideuseful information in diverse situationsliketurbidity, ammonium, organicmatter, salinity, algae, silicates. This information mightbe achieved in real time with multiparametricsensorsand even with remote sensingtechniques, of courseexamining the variations of theseparameters in eachcontext.
A literaturesurvey and an experimentalstudy on the associations of thesealterations with concentrations of bacterialindicatorsin bathingwatersrepresentative of the diverse Europeanconditionswould be veryuseful.
Of courseanotherimportantactivityisthat of improving the capacity of predictingSTPswithmathematicalmodelling.
In conclusion, the approach of the currentdirective and the balance between the diverse tools (monitoring, prediction of STPs, information to the public, improvement of environmentalquality) should be kept and improved, bearing in mindthatthisdirective, according to the strategyindicated in the water frameworkdirective, hasalsoenvironmentalobjectives, those of a higherquality of ourwaters.
BWD reviewprocess
Betteruses of profiles
The currentdirectiveclassifiesbathingwatersqualityonly on the basis of theresults of monitoringactivities. Itwould be more comprehensive to considerthese data together with the information on profiles (no interceptedsources of pollution, STPs).
Fig.4 of the WHO guidelines for saferecreationalwaters (2003) offers an example of thisapproach.
Ideally the analysis of the sources of contamination (urban, zootechnical, others) in the area of influence shouldallow to estimate the burden of contaminationexpressedasequivalentinhabitants. Thenthisnumbermay be loweredaccording to the capacity of waste water treatment plantsand otherinfrastructures in zootechnicalareas, etc., in the diverse conditions (no rainfall, heavyrainfalls, etc.). The residualburdenshouldthen be related to the dilutingcapacity of the bathing water in diverse meteorological and environmental conditions. At the end of the procedure, everybathing water should be classified for exampleusing the WHO approach.
At the end of thisprocessthe classificationshouldbe a combination of classesqualityderived from monitoring data with the categories of profiles.
Otherparameters
Cyanobacteria and algae in manycasesformblooms in bathingwaters. According to the currentdirectivebathingwaters can be classified of excellentqualityevenwhencontinousblooms of thesemicrorganismsoccur. Itis hard to maintainthatbathingwatersaffected by theseblooms are of the samequality of thoseunaffected.
Bathingwatersshould be gradedaccording totheirsuitability for recreational use, based on contamination with microorganisms,cyanobacteria or algae, otherparameters. For cyanobacterial and algalquality, the water should be classified by combining ameasure of the water body’ssusceptibility to algalcontamination with an assessmentof historicalcyanobacterialmonitoringresults, to produce an overall ‘suitability forrecreation’ classification.
Accidents prevention
The EU directive on bathingwatersdoesnotconsider the mainrisks (of extremely high prioritiesaccording to the WHO guidelines, 2003) , which are accidentscausingdrowning, near-drowning, spinalinjury.
Most of theseaccidentsmay be preventedasshown by thefollowingdata (Dinesh Seti, WHO Europe, World Conference on drowningprevention, Postdam, Germany, 20-22 October):
27,000 deaths in the 53 countries of the WHO EuropeanRegion
Drowing rate 5 timeshigher in low- and middle incomecountriesthan high incomecountries.
In the worsecountries (Lithuania, Latvia, and Belarus), deathrates are 23 timeshigherthan in the 3 safest countries (Germany, Netherlands and United Kingdom).
4 of 5 deathsaffectpeople from deprivedsection of society and males (irrespective of the country income).
Drowingis the 8° leading cause of death in children and adolescent under 20 years.
Most of theseaccidentsmight be prevented with an adequatestrategy. The new directiveshouldconsiderthispriorityissue.
Enzo Funari and Liana Gramaccioni