If river sand was strip mined from a river bank of a river that tested
positive for total coliform and fecal coliform less than 4000 mpnc/100ml
but negative for E-coli, could it pose threat to the flora and fauna of
the country where the sand is being imported to? The river floods one
or twice a year and the mine area will be covered with the non-portable
water. The mine is located in coastal Honduras and the river is crystal
clear. The temperature is high, the sunlight is intense, and moisture
dissipates very quickly especially in the arid sand. The sand will be
transported via barge to a Caribbean island 300miles away. The
transportation process does not add any other contaminants of any kind
and the material is stored and transported in contaminant free and
secure areas. The sand is free from contamination by plant pathogenic
micro-organisms, Phylum spp, Phythopthora spp, Rhizoctonia spp,
pathogenic fungus, Fusarium sp, and nematodes. It simply means that the
sand has passed the test required by our Agriculture Department and the
sand is free from contaminants. We are not a very high-tech country and
it seems that our Agriculture Department has somehow confused the
requirement for portable water to our mining operation and is slowing
down our business deal unnecessary. They are afraid that when the river
floods it will contaminate the sand with the coliform and somehow it
will cause a threat to our flora and fauna. Please provide us with
information indicating weather fecal and coliform could cause harm after
being transported over 300 miles in the arid sand with extremely low
moisture content that is meant to be used for growing grass on a Golf
Course. Our Island does have a history of contamination from coliform of
several kinds and the coliform will not be a foreign agent being
introduced to our flora and fauna. I will like to do my best to answer
any questions you have in order to help the progress.
Sincerely,
C.G.M. |
Request for Question Clarification by
pafalafa-ga
on
04 Aug 2004 06:54 PDT
A few question, if I may:
--I am familiar with coliform counts measured as MPN (Most Probable
Number) per 100ml -- is this the same measure you are using, when you
refer to 4000 mpnc/100ml? The addition of a "c" after the MPN is
unfamiliar to me.
--Using MPN numbers, standards for coliform are often set at a few
hundred (for example, 200 MPN/100ml), so it is not unreasonable for
there to be concerns at the level of 4,000 MPN/100ml.
--On the other hand, sewage typically has MPN numbers in the hundreds
of millions, or even billions, so from that perspective, 4,000 doesn't
seem like very much.
--Bottom line is...there is probably no clear cut answer to the
question of: Is it safe, or is it a problem? Theoretically, even a
single micro-organism can wreak havoc, although the odds of a problem
are extremely small. The most reliable guidance would come from the
guidelines and practices that are in place in the country or countries
where the sand is being placed. There may also be international
guidelines that could be used for guidance in this situation.
So...
--please clarify if MPN is the appropriate units for what you've had tested
--also please clarify how we can best help you. What sort of
information would be most useful to you in order to make progress on
your situation?
Thanks....and good luck.
pafalafa-ga
|
Clarification of Question by
cnyc31-ga
on
04 Aug 2004 11:52 PDT
Dear Google
I would like to clarify that "mpnc" is the same as "mpn". I just
added the c for "colonies". Sorry for the confusion.
Also the number that I choose, 4000MPN/100ML, was a likely number that
I know our water sample cannot pass. I understood that this water was
too clear and clean and it would be impossible to go beyound this very
high coliform counts.
This morning I recived the actual test results done by the Wather
Authority. The water sample from the river was tested for portable
water. Our standard for drinking water is 0MPN/100ML. The test
results from the Water Authority reads "confluent growth with
coliforms" for the sample tested.
With this being said I would like to point out to the Agriculture
Department that the coliforms detected cannot harm the enviroment
here. It poses no more threat then using our own sand from our island
to grow grass on the golf course where the fecal coliforms is already
present(they exists all around the island, in the mangroves, etc).
I need information indicating that unless considerable amount of sand
is consumed from the river, the threat this sand can pose to our flora
and fauna is extremly unlikely to none.
Let's at least find out how long it takes for the fecal and total
coliform to die off in the sand once it's dry.
Thank you very much for your hard work and looking foward to the update!
Sincerly,
C.G.M.
|
