Avaliação microbiológica da água do Arroio Pessegueirinho de Santa Rosa, noroeste do estado do Rio Grande do Sul
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5902/223613085933Keywords:
Pessegueirinho river, Water microbiology quality, Total coliforms, Fecal coliformsAbstract
The Pessegueirinho river is in a state of emergency due to the high environmental degradationindex provided by the population which makes sewer network links directly into the River.Coliform bacteria do not cause disease by dwell the human gut, but the presence of coliformbacteria in water of a river means that this river received fecal material. The identification ofcoliforms is done easily, since bacteria belonging to this group will ferment the lactose of culturemedium, producing gases that are observed in test tubes. The diseases can be minimized byadopting practices of sanitation as collection and treatment of domestic sewage treatment andwater supply. In the study, we can observe that the River has the quality of its waters completelycompromised, unfit for human or animal consumption, for swimming or for irrigation of fruit orvegetables, for presenting a concentration above the permitted. This way, the treatment anddisposal of sewage would be the most important measures to reverse this situation of risk topublic health. These measures, together with a program of health education, would aim theclarification and the changing habits of the local population.
Downloads
References
ANVISA. Agência Nacional de Vigilância em Saúde. Manual de Microbiologia Clínica para o Controle de Infecção em Serviço de Saúde. Editora Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária, ed.1. Brasília, 2000.
BRASIL. Fundação Nacional de Saúde (FUNASA). Manual Prático de Análise de Água. Fundação Nacional de Saúde, ed.2. Brasília, 2006.
BRASIL. Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde. Vigilância e Controle da Qualidade da Água para Consumo Humano. Brasília: Ministério da Saúde, 2006.
CESAN. Companhia Espírito Santense de Saneamento: Portaria: 2.914 do Ministério da Saúde. Espírito Santo, 2011.
CONSELHO NACIONAL DO MEIO AMBIENTE. Resolução CONAMA nº 357/2005. A classificação dos corpos d’água e diretrizes ambientais para o seu enquadramento. Brasília: Ministério do Meio Ambiente, 2005.
OLIVEIRA, Lia. A importância da vigilância da qualidade d água no município de São Gonçalo. Rio de Janeiro, 2007.
TERRA, V.; SANTOS, R.; ALIPRANDI, R.; BARCELOS, F.; AZEVEDO, R.; BARBIÉRI, R. Avaliação Microbiológica das Águas Superficiais do Rio Jacu Braço Sul, ES, Brasil. Natureza on line, v.6, p.48-52. 2008.
VASCONCELLOS, F., IGANCI, J.; RIBEIRO, G. Qualidade Microbiológica da Água do Rio São Lourenço, São Lourenço do Sul, Rio Grande do Sul. Arquivos do Instituto de Biologia Vegetal, v.73, n.2, p.177-181. São Paulo, 2006.
CUNHA, A.; TARTLER, N.; SANTOS, R.; FORTUNA, J. Análise Microbiológica da Água do Rio Itanhém em Teixeira de Freitas- BA. Revista Biociências, v.16, n.2. São Paulo, 2010.
MORELLI, M.; ALMEIDA, M.; TURECK, S. Análise Microbiológica da Água do Rio Lageado Acelo, Cascavel, Paraná, Brasil. Revista Brasileira de Biociências, v.6, supl.1, p.57-58. Porto Alegre, 2008.
CUNHA, A.; CUNHA, H.; JÚNIOR, A.; DANIEL, L.; SCHULZ, H. Qualidade Microbiológica da Água em Rios de Áreas Urbanas e Periurbanas no Baixo Amazonas: o Caso do Amapá. Revista Engenharia Sanitária Ambiental, v.9, n.4, p.322-328. Rio e Janeiro, 2004.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Ethical guidelines for journal publication
The REMOA is committed to ensuring ethics in publication and quality of articles.
Conformance to standards of ethical behavior is therefore expected of all parties involved: Authors, Editors, Reviewers, and the Publisher.
In particular,
Authors: Authors should present an objective discussion of the significance of research work as well as sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the experiments. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Review articles should also be objective, comprehensive, and accurate accounts of the state of the art. The authors should ensure that their work is entirely original works, and if the work and/or words of others have been used, this has been appropriately acknowledged. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Authors should not submit articles describing essentially the same research to more than one journal. The corresponding author should ensure that there is a full consensus of all co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its submission for publication.
Editors: Editors should evaluate manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit. An editor must not use unpublished information in the editor's own research without the express written consent of the author. Editors should take reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.
Reviewers: Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviews should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments, so that authors can use them for improving the paper. Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
