Legionella pneumophila occurrence in reduced-occupancy buildings in 11 cities during the COVID-19 pandemic

Katherine S. Dowdell, Hannah D. Greenwald, Sayalee Joshi, Marianne Grimard-Conea, Sarah Pitell, Yang Song, Christian Ley, Lauren C. Kennedy, Solize Vosloo, Linxuan Huo, Sarah-Jane Haig, Kerry A. Hamilton, Kara L. Nelson, Ameet Pinto, Michele Prévost, Caitlin R. Proctor, Lutgarde M. Raskin, Andrew J. Whelton, Emily Garner, Kelsey J. Pieper, William J. Rhoads
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.06.28.22277022

Abstract

In spring 2020, reduced water demand was an unintended consequence of COVID-19 pandemic-related building closures. Concerns arose that contaminants associated with water stagnation, such as Legionella pneumophila, could become prevalent. To investigate this potential public health risk, samples from 26 reduced-occupancy buildings across 11 cities in the United States, Canada, and Switzerland were analyzed for L. pneumophila using liquid culture (Legiolert, n=258) and DNA-based methods (qPCR/ddPCR, n=138). L. pneumophila culture-positivity was largely associated with just five buildings, each of which had specific design or operational deficiencies commonly associated with L. pneumophila occurrence. Samples from free chlorine buildings had higher culture-positivity (37%) than chloramine buildings (1%), and 78% of culture-positive samples occurred when the residual was ≤0.1 mg/L Cl2. Although overall sample positivities using culture- and DNA-based methods were equivalent (34% vs. 35%), there was disagreement between the methods in 13% of paired samples. Few buildings reported any water management activities, and L. pneumophila concentrations in flushed samples were occasionally greater than in first-draw samples. This study provides insight into how building plumbing characteristics and management practices contribute to L. pneumophila occurrence during low water use periods and can inform targeted prevention and mitigation efforts.

Synopsis Statement Legionella pneumophila occurrence was evaluated in reduced-occupancy buildings during the COVID-19 pandemic across multiple cities.

1. Introduction

Closures of non-residential buildings to slow the spread of COVID-19 resulted in water demand reductions in many public, industrial, educational, and commercial buildings.1–5 While short periods of reduced water use (e.g., nights, weekends, school breaks) are common in building plumbing, many buildings were closed or at reduced occupancy for several months during the COVID-19 pandemic.6–10 Reduced water use is associated with decreased disinfectant residual levels, equilibration of hot and cold water temperatures with building temperature, and potential for increased concentrations of contaminants such as disinfection byproducts, metals, and opportunistic pathogens.11–21 Legionella pneumophila, the causative agent of Legionnaires’ disease and Pontiac fever, was of particular concern because its occurrence is widely assumed to be associated with low water use,22–26 and disease incidence is rising around the world.27–30 However, few studies have investigated its occurrence during extended periods of reduced water use.22,26,31–33

The quantification of L. pneumophila levels in potable water systems has traditionally been performed using plate culture methods. However, alternative methods such as the IDEXX Legiolert® kit, a liquid culture method that yields results in most probable number (MPN) per volume, has become more widely used in recent years due to its ease of use and reported specificity for L. pneumophila.34–40 DNA-based methods (e.g., quantitative polymerase chain reaction [qPCR] and droplet digital polymerase chain reaction [ddPCR]) have also become more common due to fast turnaround times, the possibility to detect cells in the viable but non-culturable (VBNC) state, and the potential for increased specificity.41–43 However, comparison and interpretation of results obtained with different methods are generally lacking.30,42 L. pneumophila monitoring is usually not conducted outside healthcare settings unless the location is specifically associated with disease incidence. This lack of broad surveillance and method comparability has limited our understanding of typical L. pneumophila concentrations in commercial and public building plumbing, the impacts of water demand patterns in those buildings, and the effectiveness of various interventions for L. pneumophila mitigation.33

Recent investigations into the impact of COVID-19 pandemic building closures have reported that building water quality overall was negatively impacted.7,44–49 However, studies have reported mixed results with respect to L. pneumophila, including no detection of L. pneumophila,44,49 no change in occurrence as water use returned to normal levels,45 a small increase (2x) in Legionella spp. relative abundance after two months of reduced water use,47 and widespread detection of L. pneumophila that increased during closure.46 Each of these studies focused on individual cities, buildings, or regions, with none conducting sampling across distribution systems in different regions. Regional differences such as climate,50 source water, and system operation (e.g., water age, pH, residual disinfectant type) are likely to impact L. pneumophila occurrence in drinking water distribution systems.35 For example, adding a residual disinfect in drinking water distribution systems is required in most public water systems in the United States and Canada, but not in other countries, such as Switzerland.51

The objective of this study was to characterize the occurrence of L. pneumophila in drinking water collected from large, non-residential buildings at reduced occupancy due to the COVID-19 pandemic across 11 cities and three countries (United States, Canada, and Switzerland) using a culture-based method (Legiolert) and DNA-based methods (qPCR or ddPCR). Physicochemical water quality parameters, building characteristics, and details of water management practices were collected to identify factors that contribute to L. pneumophila occurrence. Sampling was initiated as a rapid response to assess a potential public health concern, conducted across multiple academic institutions. Site-specific investigations were conducted at several of the sampling locations, the results of which are or will be reported elsewhere.52,53 This study presents a cross-sectional analysis of potential L. pneumophila exposure risks in buildings with diverse uses, plumbing configurations, operation, and climate regions.

2. Methods

2.1 Sampling Locations

Samples were collected (n=258) from 26 buildings that were either closed or operating at reduced capacity in 11 cities in the United States, Canada, and Switzerland between April and December 2020 (Figure S1). All buildings were connected to underground municipal drinking water distribution systems and received water with free chlorine (free chlorine buildings) or monochloramine (chloramine buildings) as the secondary disinfectant, except the building in Switzerland (CH-1), which received water without a secondary disinfectant (no residual building). All buildings from each site were supplied by the same distribution system. Buildings were large, multi-story recreational, educational, office, commercial, or mixed-use (e.g., research labs and offices) facilities (Table 1). Samples were collected from showers (n=101), manual faucets (n=139), electronic (automatic) faucets (n=13), and bottle-filling stations and drinking fountains (n=5). Samples included hot (n=114), cold (n=43), or “mixed” (n=101; hot and cold water mixed prior to the fixture) water. Other relevant building information was collected from owners and maintenance staff, including building occupancy levels, building plumbing characteristics, and details of water management plans and practices prior to, during, and after building water shutdowns (Table 1 and Table S1). At Site PA, samples were collected from laboratory-scale shower rigs supplied by building water. The building plumbing at Site CH was known to contain L. pneumophila prior to 2020. Permission was obtained prior to sample collection, and results of testing were communicated to building owners. While the investigations at each site followed the same overall study design, there were variations in fixture flushing and analysis methods due to the collaborative nature of the sampling campaign.

View this table:
Table 1.

Summary of sampling locations and building characteristics.

2.2 Sample Collection

First-draw samples (n=203) were collected from every fixture sampled. Afterwards, flushed samples (n=55) were collected at a subset of locations, with flush times ranging from one to 30 minutes. Samples were collected without removing or sanitizing aerators/showerheads (except at Site MA), representing what users would experience upon opening fixtures. For both first-draw and flushed samples, 1 to 1.5 L of water was collected in a sterile container. Samples were immediately split onsite for physicochemical (100 mL), culture-based (100 mL; IDEXX Laboratories Inc., catalog number WV120SBST-20), and DNA-based (0.8 L to 1.1 L) analyses and processed the same day. Residual disinfectant was quenched using sodium thiosulfate in subsamples used for culture-based and DNA-based analyses. Sample totals by analysis method and site are provided in Table S2. Sampling controls are described in Table S3.

2.3 Physicochemical Analyses

Chlorine species were measured using the N,N-diethyl-p-phenylenediamine (DPD) colorimetric method and portable spectrophotometers (Hach, Loveland, CO, USA) with limits of detection (LOD) ranging from 0.02 to 0.05 mg/L as Cl2. Chlorine residuals are presented as total chlorine for all sites except for Site WV, where only free chlorine was measured (Table S4). Site-specific details of additional physicochemical methods (including pH and temperature) are included in Table S4. Physicochemical parameters were not recorded for samples collected at Sites CH and OH, and most samples from Site IN.

2.4 Culture-Based Methods

Culturable L. pneumophila was quantified using Legiolert according to manufacturer instructions for 100 mL potable water samples (IDEXX Laboratories, Inc., Westbrook, ME, USA, catalog number WLGT-20). The LOD is 10 MPN/L, and the upper limit of quantification (ULOQ) is 22,726 MPN/L. Positive and negative controls were included per manufacturer guidelines (Table S3).

2.5 DNA Concentration and Extraction

DNA was filter-concentrated onto 0.2 or 0.4 µm filters on the day of sampling (Table S5). Filters were frozen at either -80°C or -20°C until extraction. Samples were extracted using the methods described in Table S5. Filtration and extraction controls are described in Table S3.

2.6 qPCR and ddPCR

Of the 258 samples analyzed for culturable L. pneumophila, 138 were processed for L. pneumophila by PCR (n=120 by qPCR and n=18 by ddPCR) using previously optimized assays that were validated by the individual laboratories (referred to as Laboratories A, B, C, D, and E; Tables S6 and S7). DNA extracts from Sites CA, WV, IN, and OH were shipped overnight on dry ice to Laboratory A for qPCR (Table S7). Laboratories A, B, and E analyzed samples using qPCR with an assay targeting a single-copy macrophage infectivity potentiator (mip) gene.54 Laboratory D, which analyzed samples from Site QC, used the proprietary iQ-Check® Quanti L. pneumophila Real-Time PCR Quantification Kit (Bio-Rad, Hercules, CA, USA, catalog number 3578103). Laboratory C analyzed samples from Site PA using ddPCR and a different mip gene assay, which was modified for use without a probe (Table S6).55 Additional qPCR and ddPCR details are included in Tables S6 and S7. Samples from Sites CH and MA were not analyzed for L. pneumophila gene targets.

All laboratories followed Minimum Information for Publication of Quantitative Real-Time PCR Experiments (MIQE) and Environmental Microbiology Minimum Information (EMMI) guidelines.56,57 For qPCR, all samples, standards, and controls were analyzed using triplicate reactions on each plate, except for Laboratory D, which used duplicate reactions (Table S7). Serial dilutions of synthetic DNA consisting of the 79 base pair (bp) amplicon with 30 bp neutral adaptors on each end (gBlock, Integrated DNA Technologies [IDT], Coralville, IA, USA; Table S6),54 ranging from 108 to 100 gene copies per reaction (gc/reaction) served as the standards for qPCR in all laboratories except Laboratory D, which used the proprietary standards included in the Bio-Rad kit. Efficiencies between 80 and 115% and R2 values of 0.98 were required for all qPCR plates containing positive samples (Table S8). Any plates that did not meet these criteria were re-run. For ddPCR, serial dilutions of synthetic DNA (gBlock, IDT)55 were included on each plate, as were no-template controls (Table S7). No-template controls were either negative or amplified at Cq values less than the LOD for each group.

The qPCR/ddPCR LOD and lower limit of quantification (LLOQ) were determined in each laboratory independently using serial dilutions of standards with at least 21 replicates across at least three plates, at concentrations ranging from 102 to 100 gc/reaction (Table S9), except for Laboratory D which followed kit instructions. The qPCR/ddPCR LOD was defined as the lowest concentration at which at least 95% of the standard replicates were detected,56 resulting in LODs ranging from 21 to 1×105 gc/L (1 to 100 gc/reaction) across laboratories. The LLOQ was defined as the lowest concentration where the coefficient of variation was less than 25%,58 resulting in LLOQs ranging from 3.5×102 to 2×105 gc/L (6.1 to 100 gc/reaction) across laboratories. Details of the conversion of LOD and LLOQ to gene copies per liter (gc/L) are provided in Equation S1. Details of inhibition testing at each laboratory are provided in SI 3.

Cross-laboratory validation of quantitative standards was performed using a single gBlock that was sent to all laboratories using the Nazarian et al. assay.54 Details are provided in SI 4 and Figure S2.

2.7 Data Analysis

Data analyses were performed using R (version 4.1.1) and RStudio (version 1.4.1717) using a custom R pipeline that included the packages tidyverse, lubridate, and readxl.59,60 Because data were left-censored, imputation was performed, replacing results (physicochemical, qPCR/ddPCR, and Legiolert) less than the LOD with one half the LOD for plotting, calculating summary statistics, and non-parametric hypothesis testing. Legiolert results that were above the ULOQ were set at 30,000 MPN/L. For qPCR/ddPCR data, values between the LOD and LLOQ were replaced with the average of the LOD and LLOQ to assign identical rank for non-parametric analyses. Samples were considered positive by qPCR/ddPCR if gene copy concentrations were above the LOD. As data were non-normal (Shapiro-Wilk’s, R function shapiro.test, p<0.01), hypothesis testing was conducted using the non-parametric two-sample Wilcoxon rank sum test (“Mann-Whitney”, R function wilcox.test) with a significance threshold of 0.05. The R package stats was used to calculate medians. Rank correlations were calculated using Kendall’s Tau-b using cor.test, which is well-suited for nonparametric, left-censored data.61 Correlation analysis and principal component analysis (PCA) were performed using the R packages vegan, Hmisc, GGally, forcats, corrplot, devtools, and ggbiplot. The binomial generalized linear mixed-effects model used to investigate the relationship between L. pneumophila culture positivity, physicochemical parameters, and building characteristics was performed using glmer, with the input consisting of 112 samples from ten buildings. The equation used for model generation is provided in Figure S16. Figures were generated in R using the additional packages ggPlot2, cowplot, scales, lubridate, repr, sf, rnaturalearth, maps, viridis, ggrepel, and ggnewscale. The full R pipeline and associated data are available on GitHub (https://github.com/kathdowd/L.pneumophila_study_2022).

3. Results and Discussion

3.1 L. pneumophila occurrence

3.1.1 L. pneumophila detection was building-specific

The overall sample positivity of 34% (Legiolert: n=88 of 258) to 35% (qPCR/ddPCR: n=48 of 138) suggests that L. pneumophila occurrence was relatively commonplace. However, detection was limited to a few specific buildings, with heterogeneity among buildings from the same distribution system. Only seven of the 26 buildings yielded Legiolert-positive samples (IN-1, AZ-1, PA-1, QC-1, QC-3, MI-3, and CH-1; Figure 1A), and the vast majority of positive samples (98%, n=86 of 88) occurred in just five buildings. Four of those five buildings were free chlorine buildings (IN-1, AZ-1, PA-1, QC-3) and the fifth was the no residual building (CH-1). In these five buildings, the percentages of Legiolert-positive samples were high (65% to 100%), and median L. pneumophila concentrations in Legiolert-positive samples ranged from 20 to >22,726 MPN/L. The highest concentrations of culturable L. pneumophila were observed in Buildings AZ-1 (median: >22,726 MPN/L) and QC-3 (median: 1,198 MPN/L), where at least one sample was >22,726 MPN/L. Similar results were observed using qPCR/ddPCR: seven buildings had at least one positive sample (AZ-1, PA-1, QC-3, WV-1, WV-2, MI-1, CA-2), three of which (AZ-1, PA-1, QC-3) were also positive by Legiolert. The median positive sample concentrations in qPCR/ddPCR-positive buildings ranged from 158 to 3.1×106 gc/L, with the highest concentrations (>106 gc/L) occurring in Buildings WV-1, WV-2, and QC-3 (Figure S3).

Figure 1.
Figure 1.

Culturable Legionella pneumophila concentrations (MPN/L) by (A) building and (B) secondary disinfectant type. Marker color represents flush condition, where blue circles are first-draw samples and green circles are flushed samples. The dashed horizontal line indicates the LOD (10 MPN/L) and the dotted horizontal line indicates the ULOQ (22,726 MPN/L). Results below the LOD are plotted at one-half the LOD (5 MPN/L). Results above the ULOQ are plotted as 30,000 MPN/L.

There was heterogeneity in L. pneumophila occurrence among different buildings in the same distribution system. For instance, at Sites IN and QC, only one building yielded multiple Legiolert-positive samples while other buildings had one or no positive samples. Buildings that were positive for L. pneumophila tended to have multiple positive fixtures, which has also been commonly reported in the literature.62,63 For example, in one recent survey, buildings with Legionella spp. detection in the centralized hot water systems had an average distal positivity of 83% and had significantly higher average concentrations of Legionella spp. compared to buildings without Legionella spp. in the centralized hot water system.64 In that same study, the majority of systems with at least one positive sample had more than 30% of distal sites positive (21 of 22 systems).

3.1.2 Building-specific features shaped L. pneumophila positivity

The buildings with multiple Legiolert-positive samples had identifiable building plumbing operational and/or design deficiencies that did not align with industry recommended practices. Building IN-1 (Legiolert positivity: 75% [n=3 of 4]; qPCR positivity: not measured) is a large single-family home converted to a multifamily residence with an oversized water heater (100-gallon heater with 115-gallon insulated holding tank). Building AZ-1 (Legiolert positivity: 100% [n=7 of 7]; qPCR positivity: 100% [n=7 of 7]) is a green building (LEED-certified); LEED-certified buildings have previously been linked to high water residence times and, in certain cases, L. pneumophila occurrence.12,65,66 In addition, AZ-1 uses whole-building water softening upon entry of water into the building. A sample collected from a water storage tank immediately after the water softener was positive for L. pneumophila by both Legiolert (10,616 MPN/L) and qPCR (650 gc/L) and had a low chlorine residual (0.05 mg/L as Cl2), indicating that residual disinfectant loss was occurring in the water softener. Previous investigations in this building found that the softener was oversized for the building water demand, leading to high water residence time in the softener.65,66 Building PA-1 (Legiolert positivity: 94% [n=17 of 18]; ddPCR positivity: 67% [n=12 of 18]) is a laboratory-scale experimental shower rig consisting of three water heaters, each of which supplies three showers. The water heaters were operated at 49°C and thermostatic mixing valves limited water temperature to 40°C at the fixtures. After four months of no water use (while still maintaining the 49°C heater set point), the median L. pneumophila concentration in first-draw samples was 66 MPN/L. Building QC-3 (Legiolert positivity: 83% [n=19 of 23]; qPCR positivity: 91% [n=21 of 23]) is a sports building with a complex hot water system, which includes four water heaters in series. Issues identified included that a portion of the returned hot water was mixed with the hot water exiting the water heaters, resulting in a decrease of the distributed hot water temperature to below 60°C; a single thermostatic mixing valve for many showerheads (>20) created large volumes of tepid water; and the third water heater was found to be off but still connected to the system, resulting in cooling of hot water to 30°C. Building CH-1 (Legiolert positivity: 65% [n=40 of 62]; qPCR positivity: not measured) is a mixed-use building that was historically culture-positive for L. pneumophila and fluctuates the water heater set point between 45°C (5 days/week) to 60°C (2 days/week) to save energy. Building CH-1 also reported significant heat losses in the primary recirculating line and passive recirculation on individual floor loops, leading to suboptimal temperatures for control of L. pneumophila.52

3.1.3 L. pneumophila occurrence varied by secondary disinfectant type

Five free chlorine buildings yielded multiple Legiolert-positive samples, whereas only a single sample was Legiolert-positive from the chloramine buildings. The positive buildings had a strong influence on overall sample positivity by secondary disinfectant residual, with samples collected from free chlorine buildings having higher Legiolert-positivity (37%, n=47 of 127) than samples collected from chloramine buildings (1.4%, n=1 of 69, Figure 1B). While samples obtained from the no residual building exhibited the highest Legiolert-positivity (65%, n=40 of 62), this building was previously reported to contain L. pneumophila67 and may not be representative of all non-chlorinated systems. Median L. pneumophila concentrations in the Legiolert-positive samples from the free chlorine buildings and the building with no residual were 126 and 287 MPN/L, respectively. The concentration measured in the single Legiolert-positive sample from the chloramine buildings was 133 MPN/L. Similar trends were observed in qPCR/ddPCR-positive samples, where positivity was 52% in free chlorine building samples (n=45 of 86) and 6% in chloramine building samples (n=3 of 52, Figure S4). Median concentrations in qPCR/ddPCR-positive samples were 5.3×103 gc/L in the free chlorine buildings (n=45) and 1.1×105 gc/L in the chloramine buildings (n=3).

In comparison to free chlorine systems, chloramine systems are commonly reported to have lower L. pneumophila occurrence and concentrations,15,68–71 even in buildings with reduced occupancy.44 Hypothesized reasons for lower L. pneumophila occurrence in chloramine systems include that monochloramine may better penetrate biofilms,72–75 may provide more persistent residuals in building plumbing,76 and may more efficiently inactivate amoebal hosts or L. pneumophila within amoebae.77,78 The few studies that examined L. pneumophila in distribution systems without a disinfectant residual generally reported low prevalence of L. pneumophila,55,79–82 though there have been reports of L. pneumophila occurrence in some building hot water systems.83,84

3.2 Impacts of physicochemical parameters and flushing

3.2.1 Secondary disinfectant concentration influenced presence and concentrations of L. pneumophila

Despite reduced occupancies in the buildings and the limited use of water quality mitigation measures (Table 1 and Table S1), 69% (n=101 of 146) of the first-draw samples analyzed for chlorine contained a chlorine residual at or above the detection limit (≥0.02 or ≥0.05 mg/L as Cl2). This relatively high level of chlorine positivity in samples may be linked to recent use of fixtures, as access to study fixtures was not restricted at all sites prior to sampling. Median chlorine residuals were lower in first-draw samples compared to flushed samples in both free chlorine (first-draw: <0.05 mg/L as Cl2, flushed: 0.05 mg/L as Cl2) and chloramine (first-draw: 0.13 mg/L as Cl2, flushed: 0.88 mg/L as Cl2) buildings (Figure S5A). First-draw samples with measurable chlorine residuals were not limited to buildings with higher occupancies and those conducting preventative maintenance, but were also collected from reduced occupancy buildings (≤5%). Even with few occupants, some buildings may have some water demand due to leaks, maintenance activities, air conditioning systems or cooling towers, and operation of treatment systems (e.g., water softeners that automatically regenerate). In contrast, other investigations of COVID-19 related building closures have reported that measurable disinfectant residuals were lacking in most samples.44,48

Overall, L. pneumophila positivity in samples tended to decrease with increasing disinfectant residual (Figures 2A, S6, and S7). In free chlorine buildings, approximately 80% (78%, n=35 of 45 by Legiolert; 82%, n=37 of 45 by qPCR/ddPCR) of positive samples occurred when the chlorine residual was less than or equal to 0.1 mg/L as Cl2 (Figures S6C and S6D). Only three free chlorine samples were Legiolert-positive with chlorine residuals above 0.2 mg/L as Cl2, and the highest chlorine residual in the Legiolert-positive samples was 0.4 mg/L as Cl2. The single Legiolert-positive sample from a chloramine building had a chlorine residual below the detection limit. However, the other 27 chloramine samples that contained little to no chlorine residual (≤0.1 mg/L as Cl2) were Legiolert-negative.

Figure 2.
Figure 2.

Physicochemical parameters and culturable L. pneumophila (MPN/L) for samples by building. A) chlorine residual (mg/L as Cl2), B) pH, and C) temperature. For A and B, marker shape represents secondary disinfectant type, with circles being free chlorine and squares being monochloramine. For C, marker shape shows the water temperature type, with upside down triangles being cold water samples, diamonds being hot water samples, and triangles being hot and cold water mixed. The dashed line shows the LOD. The dotted line shows the ULOQ. Buildings CH-1, IN-2, IN-3, IN-4, and OH-1 are excluded because physicochemical parameters were not recorded.

Free chlorine concentrations of at least 0.2 mg/L as Cl2 have been recommended for effective control of Legionella spp. in building plumbing.30,85 In a survey of residences, a free chlorine residual less than 0.4 mg/L as Cl2 at the cold water inlet was associated with significantly higher Legionella spp. gene copy numbers and household positivity.86 However, another study reported no relationship between incoming free chlorine concentration and Legionella spp. occurrence.64 While higher concentrations of monochloramine have been found to decrease the occurrence of L. pneumophila, the concentration required for prevention of L. pneumophila varies in the literature.30,85,87–90

3.2.2 Sample temperature and pH were not associated with L. pneumophila culture-positivity

Of the samples where temperature was measured (n=182), first-draw (n=146) water temperatures were similar to ambient building temperatures regardless of their source (hot, cold, or mixed), with an overall median of 25°C (Figure S5C). Only 19% (n=4 of 21) of cold water first-draw samples were below 20°C (median: 23°C), and only 5% (n=2 of 39) of hot water first-draw samples were above 50°C (median: 22°C, Figure 2C). In paired first-draw and flushed samples where temperature was recorded (n=28 pairs), flushing significantly changed the water temperature, reducing the cold water temperatures and increasing hot and mixed water temperatures (p<0.05, Figure S8).

Temperatures in Legiolert-positive hot (n=5) and mixed (n=40) samples ranged from 22°C to 43°C, which is within the suitable growth range for L. pneumophila (20°C to 45°C),63,91,92 and did not show a trend with L. pneumophila occurrence or concentration (Figure 2C). Culture-negative samples occurred at all temperatures measured (n=136, 14°C to 54°C) and sample temperature types (hot, cold, and mixed). The majority of Legiolert-negative samples (82%, n=111 of 136) were also at temperatures within the L. pneumophila suitable growth range. In samples analyzed using qPCR/ddPCR for which temperature was recorded (n=130), the temperature in the positive samples (n=48) ranged from 20°C to 43°C, while in negative samples (n=82) temperatures ranged from 17°C to 52°C (Figure S9). The highest concentrations of L. pneumophila (>1×106 gc/L) detected by qPCR/ddPCR occurred in two hot water samples from Buildings WV-1 and WV-2 and one mixed water sample from Building QC-3, which were at approximately room temperature (20 to 26°C).

It is recommended that hot water temperatures be at least 60°C in water heaters and 55°C at distal points to control L. pneumophila.30,93 However, observed water temperature at distal fixtures may not always be helpful in predicting L. pneumophila concentrations because distal sampling locations acclimate to ambient temperature.64,86,94 Therefore, approaches that incorporate whole-building temperature profiling may be more effective for assessing the influence of hot water temperature on L. pneumophila.91 Intermittent heating, and other energy-saving methods have previously been linked to lower water qualities due to decreased hot water temperatures in building plumbing.95,96 Consistent with this, two buildings with more than one culture-positive sample (CH-1 and AZ-1) practiced hot water temperature fluctuation for energy savings.

Additional physicochemical parameters, including pH (Figures 2B and S10), dissolved oxygen (Figure S11), and electrical conductivity (Figure S12) were measured in a subset of samples (Tables S4 and S10). Sample pH in chloramine buildings (median: 9.1, n=69) was higher than the pH of samples from free chlorine buildings (median: 8.2, n=112; Figures 2B and S5B) most likely because higher pH is a strategy to reduce nitrification. pH values in Legiolert-positive samples ranged from 8.0 to 10.0. Though the median pH was higher in Legiolert-positive samples (8.6, n=46) than in Legiolert-negative samples (8.3, n=135), pH tended to co-vary by building. In paired samples where pH was measured (n=27), pH was significantly different between first-draw and flushed samples (p<0.05).

3.2.3 Fixture flushing did not consistently reduce L. pneumophila occurrence

The impact of flushing during sampling on L. pneumophila was investigated using paired samples from 48 fixtures (n=96 samples from 12 buildings). While flushing (for two to 30 minutes, median: five minutes) tended to increase chlorine residual (Figure S13) and shift water temperatures toward hot/cold water set points (Figure S8), the impact of flushing on Legiolert-positivity varied by fixture: 24 pairs were Legiolert-negative in both first-draw and flushed sample, 18 were positive in both, three fixtures went from negative to positive (PA-1 and CH-1), and three fixtures went from positive to negative with flushing (CH-1; Figure S14). With qPCR/ddPCR, nine fixtures were negative in first-draw and flushed samples, three fixtures were positive in both samples (PA-1), four fixtures went from negative to positive (PA-1 and WV-1), and four went from positive to negative (in PA-1 and WV-2; Figure S15). When only considering Legiolert-positive pairs (n=18 pairs from three buildings [PA-1, CH-1, and IN-1]) flushing did not significantly change the concentration of culturable L. pneumophila (median decrease of 27 MPN/L with flushing, p=0.24). However, at individual sampling locations, flushing increased L. pneumophila concentrations as much as 549 MPN/L (IN-1) and decreased concentration by as much as 1.6×104 MPN/L (CH-1). In the three qPCR/ddPCR-positive sample pairs (PA-1), the impact of flushing on L. pneumophila gene copies was similarly mixed (L. pneumophila concentrations increased in one fixture and decreased in two). Therefore, flushing associated with sampling showed mixed results for remediation of L. pneumophila in study buildings.

Most guidance recommends volume- or water-quality-based flushing of the full building water system, which was not evaluated in this study.97–99 Other studies have also reported that flushing that is not performed systematically or that does not consider building plumbing characteristics may be ineffective for improving building water quality.100,101 While water management practices varied by building, only one (OH-1, of n=21 respondents) reported having a formal building water management plan that predated the pandemic and one (CH-1) reported a pre-existing informal management plan. Only two buildings (MI-1 and MI-2) of the 17 buildings for which additional information was provided reported regularly flushing building plumbing while occupancy was restricted (Table S1). MI-1 tended to have higher first-draw disinfectant residuals (median: 0.8 mg/L as Cl2, n=6) than the disinfectant residuals in first-draw samples from other chloramine buildings (median: 0.09 mg/L as Cl2, n=48). None of the samples from MI-2 (n=7) contained measurable concentrations of disinfectant, but fixtures in this building were restricted from use for one week prior to sampling. Interestingly, samples from MI-1 were among the only samples from chloramine buildings where L. pneumophila was detected by qPCR, though the results were below the LLOQ (Figure S3).

3.2.4 Fixture type was not associated with differences in L. pneumophila occurrence

Showers and other fixtures that generate droplets and aerosols are of particular concern for opportunistic pathogen respiratory infections because inhalation is the primary route of exposure. 102–104 Among showers and manual faucets, the primary fixture types in this study, overall culture-positivity was similar (showers: 38%, n=38 of 101; manual faucets: 34%, n=47 of 139). By qPCR/ddPCR, showers were 45% positive (n=38 of 84) and manual faucets were 11% positive (n=4 of 36). Positivity in electronic faucets (n=13 samples across four buildings), which have been linked to Legionella spp. occurrence,12,14,95,105,106 was 23% by Legiolert (n=3, AZ-1) and 46% by qPCR (n=6, AZ-1 and WV-1).

3.2.5 Combined effects of quantitative physicochemical and building parameters in L. pneumophila occurrence

To investigate the impact of building characteristics and physicochemical parameters on L. pneumophila culture-positivity in free chlorine buildings, a binomial generalized linear mixed model (glmm) was developed. The model was developed using free-chlorine samples from 10 buildings where associated physicochemical measurements and building characteristics were available (n=112) because disinfectant type has been previously shown to influence L. pneumophila occurrence.68,69,107 The model included the physicochemical parameters pH, temperature, and free chlorine concentration and the building-specific parameter building age as fixed effects; these parameters were chosen based on measured factors previously reported to influence L. pneumophila occurrence.62,80,108–110 To account for clustering by building, building identity was included in the model as a random effect. This analysis showed that none of the parameters were significantly associated with L. pneumophila positivity (p>0.05, Figure S16). Though no parameters met the significance threshold, pH was the model input with the greatest effect on the probability of L. pneumophila-positivity (p=0.14, odds ratio: 10.9; see Figure S16 for equation). A principal component analysis (PCA) was also used to investigate the impact of multiple parameters on L. pneumophila occurrence. L. pneumophila positivity again could not be fully explained by the quantitative variables included, but most Legiolert-positive samples clustered in a region representing lower chlorine concentrations (Figure S17).

3.3 L. pneumophila quantification with Legiolert versus qPCR/ddPCR

L. pneumophila was quantified in samples from 17 buildings using qPCR (n=120) and one building using ddPCR (PA-1; n=18). Of these samples, 35% (n=48 of 138) were positive by qPCR/ddPCR and 34% (n=88 of 258) were positive using Legiolert, with an 87% (n=120 of 138) agreement between qPCR/ddPCR and Legiolert (positive by both methods: n=37; negative by both methods: n=83). The 13% (n=18 of 138) of samples where there was disagreement between the two methods included 11 samples that were positive only by qPCR/ddPCR (PA-1, QC-3, WV-1, WV-2, MI-1, CA-2) and seven samples that were positive only by Legiolert (PA-1 and MI-3). The samples that were only positive by Legiolert exhibited low concentrations (median: 32 MPN/L), and all but one (n=6 of 7) were collected from PA-1 and analyzed using ddPCR, indicating that the ddPCR LOD and/or DNA extraction recovery efficiency may have impeded detection. However, false positives using Legiolert have also been reported (3% to 4%),111–113 which could have contributed to this discrepancy. The majority of samples that were positive only by qPCR/ddPCR (n=9 of 11) were quantifiable (above the LLOQ), spanning the full range of L. pneumophila concentrations (102 to 106 gc/L, Figure 3A), indicating the presence of dead or non-culturable L. pneumophila.

Figure 3.
Figure 3.

Culturable L. pneumophila results (log(MPN/L)) versus qPCR/ddPCR results (log(gc/L)). A) Results for all samples analyzed by both Legiolert and qPCR/ddPCR (n=138). The solid black diagonal line has a slope of 1 for reference. Samples that were below the LOD were plotted at one half the LOD (open squares). qPCR/ddPCR samples between the LOD and LLOQ were plotted as the average of the LOD and LLOQ (open diamonds). Samples above the LLOQ were plotted as filled circles. Results above the Legiolert ULOQ were plotted at 30,000 MPN/L. B) Results for the subset of samples that were quantifiable by both methods (n=31). The blue line is the linear regression. The dashed horizontal line indicates the Legiolert LOD (10 MPN/L) and the dotted horizontal line indicates the Legiolert ULOQ (22,726 MPN/L).

Samples positive and quantifiable by both methods had a median 0.72 log more L. pneumophila measured by qPCR/ddPCR compared to Legiolert (n=31, Figure 3B). However, seven samples that were positive by both methods yielded higher results with Legiolert than qPCR/ddPCR (median difference: 0.32 log). Linear regression analysis of the quantifiable samples resulted in a line with a slope of 0.74 and y-intercept of 0.07 (R2=0.47, Figure 3B). This analysis was used to estimate the relationship between qPCR/ddPCR and Legiolert, but, as shown in Figure 3B1, this relationship may be influenced by location-specific characteristics. Among all samples analyzed by qPCR and Legiolert, there was a negative correlation (Kendall’s tau=-0.277, p<0.001, n=138), likely due to the way non-quantifiable values were substituted. When only the quantifiable data are considered, the correlation is stronger and positive (Kendall’s tau=0.493, p<0.001, n=31).

Previous studies have reported higher Legionella percent positivity by qPCR than culture-based methods, attributing this difference to higher sensitivity of DNA-based methods and the inclusion of cells that are non-viable and/or non-culturable.114–116 However, the relatively high LODs of some of the laboratories (100 gc/reaction, translating to up to 105 gc/L; Table S9), as well as losses during concentration and extraction, may have prevented the detection of low concentrations of L. pneumophila DNA in some samples. The higher concentrations observed with qPCR/ddPCR compared to Legiolert agree with previous studies, which have reported that qPCR results were 0.5 to 3 log higher than the corresponding culture-based results.42,85,115 The correlations between quantifiable samples (Kendall’s tau=0.493; linear regression slope=0.74; Figure 3B) were similar to those reported in previous studies comparing qPCR to culture-based methods.116,117

4. Broader Implications

4.1 Implications for building water management

The proper design and management of building plumbing is critical for L. pneumophila control.30 Most existing guidance on L. pneumophila control in building plumbing advocates for the development of formal building water management plans or programs.30,97,118 As with the buildings in this study, few non-healthcare building water systems have a program due to lack of awareness, expertise, and resources.119 Furthermore, even when a management program and knowledge of best practices exist, they are not always executed properly.69,119 This study demonstrates that assessing the engineering and water quality aspects of the building plumbing can identify possible causes of L. pneumophila occurrence without having to fully implement a water management program.

Most guidance on L. pneumophila prevention and building recommissioning recommend flushing to introduce fresh water from the distribution system into building plumbing.98,99,118,120,121 The mixed effectiveness of flushing in this study emphasizes the importance of developing building-wide L. pneumophila management plans that consider building-specific plumbing characteristics.3,122 Overall, there is a need for the development of evidence-based guidance for L. pneumophila prevention and remediation in building plumbing that is accessible to broad audiences and can be implemented affordably.123,124

4.2 Implications for monitoring L. pneumophila in non-healthcare buildings

As there are few resources available to aid practitioners in the selection of L. pneumophila monitoring methods, it can be challenging to determine which methods are best-suited to a particular application. Action levels for L. pneumophila are primarily based on plate culture methods, such as ISO 11731, which yield results in colony forming units (CFU) per volume.30 However, liquid culture and DNA-based methods like those used in this study are increasingly being used for environmental monitoring due to their ease of use and reduced time to results.41–43 Additional studies that compare the performance of these methods in environmental matrices and realistic building management scenarios and relate the results to health outcomes and risk assessment are needed to bridge the gap between results and action limits.

Due to the variation in existing guidance and action limits, it is difficult to determine if remediation (e.g., shock chlorination) is required when L. pneumophila is detected in building plumbing. L. pneumophila action levels that have been proposed by various publications and organizations vary widely: risk-based limits vary from 14.4 CFU/L (disability adjusted life year, 10−6 DALY target) to 1,410 CFU/L (10−4 annual probability of infection target) in non-healthcare showers and from 12.3 CFU/L to 4,670 CFU/L for total building water fixture exposures;125 1,000 CFU/L is recommended by the European Working Group for Legionella (EWGLI);126 and health outcome-based levels are as high as 50,000 CFU/L.30 To place MPN and gene copy results in a health context, they must be converted to approximate CFU. Previous studies have found MPN to be equivalent to approximately 1.2 times CFU concentrations.111,127 Using this approximation, the number of samples in the current study that would exceed action thresholds ranged from 33 samples from five buildings using the adjusted Hamilton et al. 14.4 CFU/L threshold,125 25 samples from four buildings if using the adjusted EWGLI 1,000 CFU/L threshold,126 and up to three samples (samples above the Legiolert ULOQ) when using the adjusted 50,000 CFU/L threshold.30 As demonstrated by this variation, there is a need for greater clarity on which L. pneumophila concentrations should trigger mitigation, and recommendations should consider the vulnerability of the population exposed.26,30

4.3 Implications for communicating health risks to the building community and the general public

Based on disease surveillance data, available evidence does not support that periods of reduced water demand led to higher incidence of legionellosis. Overall reporting of legionellosis cases was lower in the United States in 2020 than in recent years prior to the pandemic,128 though some regions reported similar or higher case numbers in 2020.129,130 Switzerland also reported fewer cases in 2020 than expected based on recent increasing trends,131 and an increase in cases was not observed after travel and work-from-home restrictions associated with the first wave of COVID-19 were lifted.132 Diagnosis of legionellosis may have decreased in some areas during 2020 due to the overburdening of healthcare systems and the potential for undiagnosed co-infections with SARS-CoV-2, though the occurrence of L. pneumophila and SARS-CoV-2 co-infections has only been reported in one of three studies investigating this topic.133–135

Significant attention was paid to the potential public health threat posed by exposure to L. pneumophila in building water systems during pandemic building closures. This study, which included data from geographically and structurally diverse buildings in three countries, found that approximately 20% of buildings contained L. pneumophila concentrations in showers that were potentially of health concern (using the Hamilton et. al 14.4 CFU/L threshold for showers125 multiplied by 1.2 to convert to approximate MPN/L), suggesting that there was not widespread occurrence of L. pneumophila in buildings with reduced occupancy. Limitations of this study include that few sites were monitored for L. pneumophila prior to COVID-19 pandemic building closures, which prevents investigation of how L. pneumophila concentrations changed over time with reduced water use in buildings, and that detailed water use data were not available at most sites. In addition, it is important to note that distal site positivity does not necessarily predict incidence of Legionnaires disease, which also depends on exposure route and population susceptibility.136,137 Therefore, even the moderate overall positivity and high positivity in some individual buildings in this study do not necessarily indicate high probability of disease incidence, and no legionellosis outbreaks were associated with buildings in this study. However, due to lack of data availability, it is unknown to what degree the plumbing and water quality characteristics of the buildings sampled are representative of those within and across countries. Additionally, other water quality issues that can develop during prolonged periods of stagnation, such as occurrence of other opportunistic pathogens and high concentrations of metals, were not assessed in this work and are similarly not well studied. While sites receiving monochloramine-treated water were overwhelmingly negative for L. pneumophila, it is important to recognize limitations and trade-offs to this observation. Most buildings cannot choose which residual disinfectant is supplied in the water, and there are other concerns with monochloramine that should be considered when evaluating secondary disinfectants such as the potential for nitrification, formation of unregulated disinfection byproducts, and growth of other opportunistic pathogens.19,138,139 Additional work is needed to fully characterize the impact of reduced water use periods on building water quality and inform how buildings can prevent or react to reduced water use.

Conflict of Interest

IDEXX Laboratories, Inc. provided 300 free Legiolert kits and additional kits at a 15% discount for this study. IDEXX Laboratories, Inc. did not contribute to the design, analysis, or writing of this manuscript. The interpretation of results and opinions presented in the manuscript are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of IDEXX Laboratories, Inc.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank building owners and managers that responded to questions and provided facility access and acknowledge IDEXX Laboratories, Inc. for providing free and discounted Legiolert kits. The authors appreciate Aliya Ehde, Kirk Olsen, Benjamin Gincley, Umang Chauhan, Irmarie Cotto, and Katherine Vilardi for their water sampling assistance and Amy Pruden, Marc Edwards, and Frederik Hammes for their review of the manuscript. K.S.D. was supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) Graduate Research Fellowship under Grant No. DGE-1256260, the University of Michigan Blue Sky Grant, and the University of Michigan Rackham Predoctoral Fellowship. H.D.G. was supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) Graduate Research Fellowship under Grant No. DGE-1752814. S.M.J was supported by Arizona State University engineering startup funds. S.P was supported by a University of Pittsburgh Central Development Research award. W.J.R. was supported by EAWAG discretionary funding. C.R.P., A.J.W., and C.L. were supported by NSF Grants No. CBET-2039498 and CBET-2027049. C.R.P. was supported by the Purdue University Lilian Gilbreth Postdoctoral Fellowship. S.V. and L.H. were supported by NSF Grants No. CBET-2029850 and CBET-1749530. Water Research Foundation Project 4721 additionally supported the development of qPCR/ddPCR methods applied in this study.

Footnotes

  • ↵** Co-first authors

References

  1. (1).↵
    Poch, M.; Garrido-Baserba, M.; Corominas, L.; Perelló-Moragues, A.; Monclús, H.; Cermerón-Romero, M.; Melitas, N.; Jiang, S. C.; Rosso, D. When the Fourth Water and Digital Revolution Encountered COVID-19. Science of The Total Environment 2020, 744, 140980. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.140980.
    OpenUrl
  2. (2).
    Irwin, N. B.; McCoy, S. J.; McDonough, I. K. Water in the Time of Corona(Virus): The Effect of Stay-at-Home Orders on Water Demand in the Desert. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 2021, 109, 102491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2021.102491.
    OpenUrl
  3. (3).↵
    American Water Works Association. The Financial Impact of the COVID-19 Crisis on U.S. Drinking Water Utilities; 2020.
  4. (4).
    Menneer, T.; Qi, Z.; Taylor, T.; Paterson, C.; Tu, G.; Elliott, L. R.; Morrissey, K.; Mueller, M. Changes in Domestic Energy and Water Usage during the UK COVID-19 Lockdown Using High-Resolution Temporal Data. IJERPH 2021, 18 (13), 6818. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18136818.
    OpenUrl
  5. (5).↵
    Li, D.; Engel, R. A.; Ma, X.; Porse, E.; Kaplan, J. D.; Margulis, S. A.; Lettenmaier, D. P. Stay-at-Home Orders during the COVID-19 Pandemic Reduced Urban Water Use. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. 2021, 8 (5), 431–436. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.0c00979.
    OpenUrl
  6. (6).↵
    Spearing, L. A.; Tiedmann, H. R.; Sela, L.; Nagy, Z.; Kaminsky, J. A.; Katz, L. E.; Kinney, K. A.; Kirisits, M. J.; Faust, K. M. Human–Infrastructure Interactions during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Understanding Water and Electricity Demand Profiles at the Building Level. ACS EST Water 2021, 1 (11), 2327–2338. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsestwater.1c00176.
    OpenUrl
  7. (7).↵
    Richard, R.; Boyer, T. H. Pre- and Post-flushing of Three Schools in Arizona Due to COVID-19 Shutdown. AWWA Water Science 2021, 3 (5). https://doi.org/10.1002/aws2.1239.
  8. (8).
    Berglund, E. Z.; Asce, M.; Thelemaque, N.; Spearing, L.; Faust, K. M.; Asce, A. M.; Goharian, E.; Abokifa, A.; van Zyl, J. E.; Harkness, B.; Ostfeld, A.; Asce, F.; Kadinski, L.; Lee, J.; Keck, J. Water and Wastewater Systems and Utilities: Challenges and Opportunities during the COVID-19 Pandemic. J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage. 2021, 147 (5), 02521001-1-02521001–02521009. https://doi.org/10.1061/%28ASCE%29WR.1943-5452.0001373.
    OpenUrl
  9. (9).
    Lambrinidou, Y.; Triantafyllidou, S.; Edwards, M. Failing Our Children: Lead in U.S. School Drinking Water. New Solut 2010, 20 (1), 25–47. https://doi.org/10.2190/NS.022010eov.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  10. (10).↵
    Montagnino, E.; Proctor, C. R.; Ra, K.; Ley, C.; Noh, Y.; Vigil, K.; Aw, T. G.; Dasika, S.; Whelton, A. J. Over the Weekend: Water Stagnation and Contaminant Exceedances in a Green Office Building. PLOS Water 2022, 1 (3), e0000006. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pwat.0000006.
    OpenUrl
  11. (11).↵
    National Research Council. Drinking Water Distribution Systems: Assessing and Reducing Risks; National Academies Press: Washington, D.C., 2006; p 11728. https://doi.org/10.17226/11728.
  12. (12).↵
    Rhoads, W. J.; Pruden, A.; Edwards, M. A. Survey of Green Building Water Systems Reveals Elevated Water Age and Water Quality Concerns. Environmental Science: Water Research & Technology 2016, 2 (1), 164–173. https://doi.org/10.1039/C5EW00221D.
    OpenUrl
  13. (13).
    Lipphaus, P.; Hammes, F.; Kötzsch, S.; Green, J.; Gillespie, S.; Nocker, A. Microbiological Tap Water Profile of a Medium-Sized Building and Effect of Water Stagnation. Environmental Technology 2014, 35 (5), 620–628. https://doi.org/10.1080/09593330.2013.839748.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  14. (14).
    Ley, C. J.; Proctor, C. R.; Singh, G.; Ra, K.; Noh, Y.; Odimayomi, T.; Salehi, M.; Julien, R.; Mitchell, J.; Nejadhashemi, A. P.; Whelton, A. J.; Aw, T. G. Drinking Water Microbiology in a Water-Efficient Building: Stagnation, Seasonality, and Physicochemical Effects on Opportunistic Pathogen and Total Bacteria Proliferation. Environ. Sci.: Water Res. Technol. 2020, 6 (10), 2902–2913. https://doi.org/10.1039/D0EW00334D.
    OpenUrl
  15. (15).↵
    Wang, H.; Masters, S.; Hong, Y.; Stallings, J.; Falkinham, J. O.; Edwards, M. A.; Pruden, A. Effect of Disinfectant, Water Age, and Pipe Material on Occurrence and Persistence of Legionella, Mycobacteria, Pseudomonas Aeruginosa, and Two Amoebas. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46 (21), 11566–11574. https://doi.org/10.1021/es303212a.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  16. (16).
    Haig, S.-J.; Kotlarz, N.; LiPuma, J. J.; Raskin, L. A High-Throughput Approach for Identification of Nontuberculous Mycobacteria in Drinking Water Reveals Relationship between Water Age and Mycobacterium Avium. mBio 2018, 9 (1), e02354–17. https://doi.org/10.1128/mBio.02354-17.
    OpenUrl
  17. (17).
    Haig, S.-J.; Kotlarz, N.; Kalikin, L. M.; Chen, T.; Guikema, S.; LiPuma, J. J.; Raskin, L. Emerging Investigator Series: Bacterial Opportunistic Pathogen Gene Markers in Municipal Drinking Water Are Associated with Distribution System and Household Plumbing Characteristics. Environmental Science: Water Research & Technology 2020. https://doi.org/10.1039/D0EW00723D.
  18. (18).
    Tolofari, D. L.; Bartrand, T.; Masters, S. V.; Duarte Batista, M.; Haas, C. N.; Olson, M.; Gurian, P. L. Influence of Hot Water Temperature and Use Patterns on Microbial Water Quality in Building Plumbing Systems. Environmental Engineering Science 2021, ees.2021.0272. https://doi.org/10.1089/ees.2021.0272.
  19. (19).↵
    Nguyen, C.; Elfland, C.; Edwards, M. Impact of Advanced Water Conservation Features and New Copper Pipe on Rapid Chloramine Decay and Microbial Regrowth. Water Research 2012, 46 (3), 611–621. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2011.11.006.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. (20).
    Elfland, C.; Scardina, P.; Edwards, M. Lead-Contaminated Water from Brass Plumbing Devices in New Buildings. Journal - American Water Works Association 2010, 102 (11), 66–76. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1551-8833.2010.tb11340.x.
    OpenUrl
  21. (21).↵
    Bédard, E.; Laferrière, C.; Déziel, E.; Prévost, M. Impact of Stagnation and Sampling Volume on Water Microbial Quality Monitoring in Large Buildings. PLoS ONE 2018, 13 (6), e0199429. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0199429.
    OpenUrl
  22. (22).↵
    Garrison, L. E.; Kunz, J. M.; Cooley, L. A.; Moore, M. R.; Lucas, C.; Schrag, S.; Sarisky, J.; Whitney, C. G. Vital Signs: Deficiencies in Environmental Control Identified in Outbreaks of Legionnaires’ Disease—North America, 2000–2014. American Journal of Transplantation 2016, 16 (10), 3049–3058. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajt.14024.
    OpenUrl
  23. (23).
    Kanamori, H.; Weber, D. J.; Rutala, W. A. Healthcare Outbreaks Associated With a Water Reservoir and Infection Prevention Strategies. Clin Infect Dis. 2016, 62 (11), 1423–1435. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciw122.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. (24).
    Proctor, C. R.; Rhoads, W. J.; Keane, T.; Salehi, M.; Hamilton, K.; Pieper, K. J.; Cwiertny, D. M.; Prévost, M.; Whelton, A. J. Considerations for Large Building Water Quality after Extended Stagnation. AWWA Water Science 2020, 2 (4), e1186. https://doi.org/10.1002/aws2.1186.
    OpenUrl
  25. (25).
    Dey, R.; Ashbolt, N. J. Legionella Infection during and after the COVID-19 Pandemic. ACS EST Water 2021, 1 (1), 13–14. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsestwater.0c00151.
    OpenUrl
  26. (26).↵
    Rhoads, W. J.; Hammes, F. Growth of Legionella during COVID-19 Lockdown Stagnation. Environmental Science: Water Research & Technology 2021. https://doi.org/10.1039/D0EW00819B.
  27. (27).↵
    Beauté, J.; on behalf of the European Legionnaires’ Disease Surveillance Network. Legionnaires’ Disease in Europe, 2011 to 2015. Eurosurveillance 2017, 22 (27). https://doi.org/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2017.22.27.30566.
  28. (28).
    Greco, S. L.; Drudge, C.; Fernandes, R.; Kim, J.; Copes, R. Estimates of Healthcare Utilisation and Deaths from Waterborne Pathogen Exposure in Ontario, Canada. Epidemiology and Infection 2020, 148. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0950268820000631.
  29. (29).
    Collier, S. A.; Deng, L.; Adam, E. A.; Benedict, K. M.; Beshearse, E. M.; Blackstock, A. J.; Bruce, B. B.; Derado, G.; Edens, C.; Fullerton, K. E.; Gargano, J. W.; Geissler, A. J.; Havelaar, A. H.; Hill, V. R.; Hoekstra, R. M.; Reddy, S. C.; Scallan, E.; Yoder, J. S.; Beach, M. J. Estimate of Burden and Direct Healthcare Cost of Infectious Waterborne Disease in the United States. Emerging Infectious Diseases 2021, 27 (1).
  30. (30).↵
    National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Management of Legionella in Water Systems; National Academies Press: Washington, D.C., 2020. https://doi.org/10.17226/25474.
  31. (31).
    Ciesielski, C. A.; Blaser, M. J.; Wang, W. L. Role of Stagnation and Obstruction of Water Flow in Isolation of Legionella Pneumophila from Hospital Plumbing. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1984, 48 (5), 984–987.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  32. (32).
    Nisar, M. A.; Ross, K. E.; Brown, M. H.; Bentham, R.; Whiley, H. Water Stagnation and Flow Obstruction Reduces the Quality of Potable Water and Increases the Risk of Legionelloses. Frontiers in Environmental Science 2020. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2020.611611.
  33. (33).↵
    Proctor, C.; Garner, E.; Hamilton, K. A.; Ashbolt, N. J.; Caverly, L. J.; Iii, J. O. F.; Haas, C. N.; Prevost, M.; Prevots, D. R.; Pruden, A.; Raskin, L.; Stout, J.; Haig, S.-J. Tenets of a Holistic Approach to Drinking Water-Associated Pathogen Research, Management, and Communication. Water Research 2021, 117997. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2021.117997.
  34. (34).↵
    Checa, J.; Carbonell, I.; Manero, N.; Martí, I. Comparative Study of Legiolert with ISO 11731-1998 Standard Method-Conclusions from a Public Health Laboratory. Journal of Microbiological Methods 2021, 186, 106242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mimet.2021.106242.
    OpenUrl
  35. (35).↵
    LeChevallier, M. W. Monitoring Distribution Systems for Legionella Pneumophila Using Legiolert. AWWA Water Science 2019, 1 (1), e1122. https://doi.org/10.1002/aws2.1122.
    OpenUrl
  36. (36).
    Sartory, D. P.; Spies, K.; Lange, B.; Schneider, S.; Langer, B. Evaluation of a Most Probable Number Method for the Enumeration of Legionella Pneumophila from Potable and Related Water Samples. Lett Appl Microbiol 2017, 64 (4), 271–275. https://doi.org/10.1111/lam.12719.
    OpenUrl
  37. (37).
    Petrisek, R.; Hall, J. Evaluation of a Most Probable Number Method for the Enumeration of Legionella Pneumophila from North American Potable and Nonpotable Water Samples. Journal of Water and Health 2018, 16 (1), 57–69. https://doi.org/10.2166/wh.2017.118.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  38. (38).
    Rech, M. M.; Swalla, B. M.; Dobranic, J. K. Evaluation of Legiolert for Quantification of Legionella Pneumophila from Non-Potable Water. Current Microbiology 2018, 75 (10), 1282–1289. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00284-018-1522-0.
    OpenUrl
  39. (39).
    Barrette, I. Comparison of Legiolert and a Conventional Culture Method for Detection of Legionella Pneumophila from Cooling Towers in Québec. Journal of AOAC INTERNATIONAL 2019, 102 (4), 1235–1240. https://doi.org/10.5740/jaoacint.18-0245.
    OpenUrl
  40. (40).↵
    Inoue, H.; Baba, M.; Tayama, S. Evaluation of Legiolert for Quantification of Legionella Pneumophila from Bath Water Samples. Biocontrol Sci. 2020, 25 (3), 179–182. https://doi.org/10.4265/bio.25.179.
    OpenUrl
  41. (41).↵
    Wang, H.; Bédard, E.; Prévost, M.; Camper, A. K.; Hill, V. R.; Pruden, A. Methodological Approaches for Monitoring Opportunistic Pathogens in Premise Plumbing: A Review. Water Research 2017, 117, 68–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2017.03.046.
    OpenUrl
  42. (42).↵
    Whiley, H.; Taylor, M. Legionella Detection by Culture and QPCR: Comparing Apples and Oranges. Critical Reviews in Microbiology 2016, 42 (1), 65–74. https://doi.org/10.3109/1040841X.2014.885930.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  43. (43).↵
    Aw, T. G.; Rose, J. B. Detection of Pathogens in Water: From Phylochips to QPCR to Pyrosequencing. Current Opinion in Biotechnology 2012, 23 (3), 422–430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copbio.2011.11.016.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  44. (44).↵
    Hozalski, R. M.; LaPara, T. M.; Zhao, X.; Kim, T.; Waak, M. B.; Burch, T.; McCarty, M. Flushing of Stagnant Premise Water Systems after the COVID-19 Shutdown Can Reduce Infection Risk by Legionella and Mycobacterium Spp. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2020, 54 (24), 15914–15924. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c06357.
    OpenUrl
  45. (45).↵
    Ye, C.; Xian, X.; Bao, R.; Zhang, Y.; Feng, M.; Lin, W.; Yu, X. Recovery of Microbiological Quality of Long-Term Stagnant Tap Water in University Buildings during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Science of The Total Environment 2022, 806, 150616. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.150616.
    OpenUrl
  46. (46).↵
    De Giglio, O.; Diella, G.; Lopuzzo, M.; Triggiano, F.; Calia, C.; Pousis, C.; Fasano, F.; Caggiano, G.; Calabrese, G.; Rafaschieri, V.; Carpagnano, F.; Carlucci, M.; Gesualdo, L.; Ricci, M. L.; Scaturro, M.; Rota, M. C.; Bonadonna, L.; Lucentini, L.; Montagna, M. T. Impact of Lockdown on the Microbiological Status of the Hospital Water Network during COVID-19 Pandemic. Environmental Research 2020, 191, 110231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2020.110231.
    OpenUrl
  47. (47).↵
    Liang, J.; Swanson, C. S.; Wang, L.; He, Q. Impact of Building Closures during the COVID-19 Pandemic on Legionella Infection Risks. American Journal of Infection Control 2021, S0196655321005952. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2021.09.008.
  48. (48).↵
    Salehi, M.; DeSimone, D.; Aghilinasrollahabadi, K.; Ahamed, T. A Case Study on Tap Water Quality in Large Buildings Recommissioned after Extended Closure Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic. Environ. Sci.: Water Res. Technol. 2021, 7 (11), 1996–2009. https://doi.org/10.1039/D1EW00428J.
    OpenUrl
  49. (49).↵
    Aw, T. G.; Scott, L.; Jordan, K.; Ra, K.; Ley, C.; Whelton, A. J. Prevalence of Opportunistic Pathogens in a School Building Plumbing during Periods of Low Water Use and a Transition to Normal Use. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health 2022, 241, 113945. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheh.2022.113945.
    OpenUrl
  50. (50).↵
    Sakamoto, R. Legionnaire’s Disease, Weather and Climate. Bull World Health Organ 2015, 93, 435–436. https://doi.org/10.2471/BLT.14.142299.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  51. (51).↵
    Hammes, F.; Berger, C.; Köster, O.; Egli, T. Assessing Biological Stability of Drinking Water without Disinfectant Residuals in a Full-Scale Water Supply System. Journal of Water Supply: Research and Technology - AQUA 2010, 59 (1), 31–40. https://doi.org/10.2166/aqua.2010.052.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  52. (52).↵
    Rhoads, W. J.; Sindelar, M.; Margot, C.; Graf, N.; Hammes, F. Variable Legionella Response to Building Occupancy Patterns and Precautionary Flushing. Microorganisms 2022, 10 (3), 555. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms10030555.
    OpenUrl
  53. (53).↵
    Vosloo, S.; Huo, L.; Chauhan, U.; Cotto, I.; Gincley, B.; Vilardi, K. J.; Yoon, B.; Pieper, K. J.; Stubbins, A.; Pinto, A. Systematic Recovery of Building Plumbing-Associated Microbial Communities after Extended Periods of Altered Water Demand during the COVID-19 Pandemic; preprint; Public and Global Health, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.01.17.22269440.
  54. (54).↵
    Nazarian, E. J.; Bopp, D. J.; Saylors, A.; Limberger, R. J.; Musser, K. A. Design and Implementation of a Protocol for the Detection of Legionella in Clinical and Environmental Samples. Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease 2008, 62 (2), 125–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2008.05.004.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  55. (55).↵
    Wullings, B. A.; Bakker, G.; van der Kooij, D. Concentration and Diversity of Uncultured Legionella Spp. in Two Unchlorinated Drinking Water Supplies with Different Concentrations of Natural Organic Matter. Appl Environ Microbiol 2011, 77 (2), 634–641. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.01215-10.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  56. (56).↵
    Bustin, S. A.; Benes, V.; Garson, J. A.; Hellemans, J.; Huggett, J.; Kubista, M.; Mueller, R.; Nolan, T.; Pfaffl, M. W.; Shipley, G. L.; Vandesompele, J.; Wittwer, C. T. The MIQE Guidelines: Minimum Information for Publication of Quantitative Real-Time PCR Experiments. Clinical Chemistry 2009, 55 (4), 611–622. https://doi.org/10.1373/clinchem.2008.112797.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  57. (57).↵
    Borchardt, M. A.; Boehm, A. B.; Salit, M.; Spencer, S. K.; Wigginton, K. R.; Noble, R. T. The Environmental Microbiology Minimum Information (EMMI) Guidelines: QPCR and DPCR Quality and Reporting for Environmental Microbiology. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2021, acs.est.1c01767. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c01767.
  58. (58).↵
    Forootan, A.; Sjöback, R.; Björkman, J.; Sjögreen, B.; Linz, L.; Kubista, M. Methods to Determine Limit of Detection and Limit of Quantification in Quantitative Real-Time PCR (QPCR). Biomolecular Detection and Quantification 2017, 12, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bdq.2017.04.001.
    OpenUrl
  59. (59).↵
    R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2021.
  60. (60).↵
    RStudio Team. RStudio: Integrated Development for R; RStudio: Boston, MA, 2020.
  61. (61).↵
    Wood, M. D.; Beresford, N. A.; Copplestone, D. Limit of Detection Values in Data Analysis: Do They Matter? Radioprotection 2011, 46 (6), S85–S90. https://doi.org/10.1051/radiopro/20116728s.
    OpenUrl
  62. (62).↵
    Leoni, E.; De Luca, G.; Legnani, P. P.; Sacchetti, R.; Stampi, S.; Zanetti, F. Legionella Waterline Colonization: Detection of Legionella Species in Domestic, Hotel and Hospital Hot Water Systems. J Appl Microbiol 2005, 98 (2), 373–379. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2672.2004.02458.x.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  63. (63).↵
    Alary, M.; Joly, J. R. Factors Contributing to the Contamination of Hospital Water Distribution Systems by Legionellae. Journal of Infectious Diseases 1992, 165 (3), 565– 569. https://doi.org/10.1093/infdis/165.3.565.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  64. (64).↵
    Pierre, D.; Baron, J. L.; Ma, X.; Sidari, F. P.; Wagener, M. M.; Stout, J. E. Water Quality as a Predictor of Legionella Positivity of Building Water Systems. Pathogens 2019, 8 (4), 295. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens8040295.
    OpenUrl
  65. (65).↵
    Richard, R.; Hamilton, K. A.; Westerhoff, P.; Boyer, T. H. Physical, Chemical, and Microbiological Water Quality Variation between City and Building and within Multistory Building. ACS EST Water 2021, 1 (6), 1369–1379. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsestwater.0c00240.
    OpenUrl
  66. (66).↵
    Richard, R.; Hamilton, K. A.; Westerhoff, P.; Boyer, T. H. Tracking Copper, Chlorine, and Occupancy in a New, Multi-Story, Institutional Green Building. Environ. Sci.: Water Res. Technol. 2020, 6 (6), 1672–1680. https://doi.org/10.1039/D0EW00105H.
    OpenUrl
  67. (67).↵
    Margot, C.; Rhoads, W.; Graf, N.; Rölli, F.; Hammes, F. Un étude de cas de contrôle des légionelles par la température. Aqua & Gas 2021.
  68. (68).↵
    Kool, J. L.; Carpenter, J. C.; Fields, B. S. Effect of Monochloramine Disinfection of Municipal Drinking Water on Risk of Nosocomial Legionnaires’ Disease. The Lancet 1999, 353 (9149), 272–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(98)06394-6.
    OpenUrl
  69. (69).↵
    Flannery, B.; Gelling, L. B.; Vugia, D. J.; Weintraub, J. M.; Salerno, J. J.; Conroy, M. J.; Stevens, V. A.; Rose, C. E.; Moore, M. R.; Fields, B. S.; Besser, R. E. Reducing Legionella Colonization of Water Systems with Monochloramine. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2006, 12 (4), 588–596. https://doi.org/10.3201/eid1204.051101.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  70. (70).
    Lytle, D. A.; Pfaller, S.; Muhlen, C.; Struewing, I.; Triantafyllidou, S.; White, C.; Hayes, S.; King, D.; Lu, J. A Comprehensive Evaluation of Monochloramine Disinfection on Water Quality, Legionella and Other Important Microorganisms in a Hospital. Water Research 2021, 189, 116656. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2020.116656.
    OpenUrl
  71. (71).↵
    Moore, M. R.; Pryor, M.; Fields, B.; Lucas, C.; Phelan, M.; Besser, R. E. Introduction of Monochloramine into a Municipal Water System: Impact on Colonization of Buildings by Legionella Spp. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 2006, 72 (1), 378–383. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.72.1.378-383.2006.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  72. (72).↵
    LeChevallier, M. W.; Cawthon, C. D.; Lee, R. G. Inactivation of Biofilm Bacteria. Appl Environ Microbiol 1988, 54 (10), 2492–2499. https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.54.10.2492-2499.1988.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  73. (73).
    Samrakandi, M. M.; Roques, C.; Michel, G. Influence of Trophic Conditions on Exopolysaccharide Production: Bacterial Biofilm Susceptibility to Chlorine and Monochloramine. Can. J. Microbiol. 1997, 43 (8), 751–758. https://doi.org/10.1139/m97-108.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  74. (74).
    Chen, C.; Griebe, T.; Characklis, W. G. Biocide Action of Monochloramine on Biofilm Systems of Pseudomonas Aeruginosa. Biofouling 1993, 7 (1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/08927019309386240.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  75. (75).↵
    Lee, W. H.; Wahman, D. G.; Bishop, P. L.; Pressman, J. G. Free Chlorine and Monochloramine Application to Nitrifying Biofilm: Comparison of Biofilm Penetration, Activity, and Viability. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 45 (4), 1412–1419. https://doi.org/10.1021/es1035305.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  76. (76).↵
    Zhang, Y.; Edwards, M. Accelerated Chloramine Decay and Microbial Growth by Nitrification in Premise Plumbing. Journal -American Water Works Association 2009, 101 (11), 51–62. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1551-8833.2009.tb09990.x.
    OpenUrl
  77. (77).↵
    Dupuy, M.; Mazoua, S.; Berne, F.; Bodet, C.; Garrec, N.; Herbelin, P.; Ménard-Szczebara, F.; Oberti, S.; Rodier, M. H.; Soreau, S.; Wallet, F.; Héchard, Y. Efficiency of Water Disinfectants against Legionella Pneumophila and Acanthamoeba. Water Research 2011, 45 (3), 1087–1094. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2010.10.025.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  78. (78).↵
    Dupuy, M.; Berne, F.; Herbelin, P.; Binet, M.; Berthelot, N.; Rodier, M.-H.; Soreau, S.; Héchard, Y. Sensitivity of Free-Living Amoeba Trophozoites and Cysts to Water Disinfectants. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health 2014, 217 (2– 3), 335–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheh.2013.07.007.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  79. (79).↵
    van der Wielen, P. W. J. J.; van der Kooij, D. Nontuberculous Mycobacteria, Fungi, and Opportunistic Pathogens in Unchlorinated Drinking Water in the Netherlands. Appl Environ Microbiol 2013, 79 (3), 825–834. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.02748-12.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  80. (80).
    van der Lugt, W.; Euser, S. M.; Bruin, J. P.; den Boer, J. W.; Yzerman, E. P. F. Wide-Scale Study of 206 Buildings in the Netherlands from 2011 to 2015 to Determine the Effect of Drinking Water Management Plans on the Presence of Legionella Spp. Water Research 2019, 161, 581–589. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2019.06.043.
    OpenUrl
  81. (81).
    Waak, M. B.; LaPara, T. M.; Hallé, C.; Hozalski, R. M. Occurrence of Legionella Spp. in Water-Main Biofilms from Two Drinking Water Distribution Systems. Environmental Science and Technology 2018, 52 (14), 7630–7639. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b01170.
    OpenUrl
  82. (82).↵
    Diederen, B. M. W.; de Jong, C. M. A.; Aarts, I.; Peeters, M. F.; van der Zee, A. Molecular Evidence for the Ubiquitous Presence of Legionella Species in Dutch Tap Water Installations. Journal of Water and Health 2007, 5 (3), 375–383. https://doi.org/10.2166/wh.2007.033.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  83. (83).↵
    Groothuis, D. G.; Veenendaal, H. R.; Dijkstra, H. L. Influence of Temperature on the Number of Legionella Pneumophila in Hot Water Systems. Journal of Applied Bacteriology 1985, 59 (6), 529–536. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2672.1985.tb03356.x.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  84. (84).↵
    Euser, S. M.; Bruin, J. P.; van der Hoek, W.; Schop, W. A.; den Boer, J. W. Wellness Centres: An Important but Overlooked Source of Legionnaires’ Disease. Eight Years of Source Investigation in the Netherlands, 1 August 2002 to 1 August 2010. Eurosurveillance 2012, 17 (8). https://doi.org/10.2807/ese.17.08.20097-en.
  85. (85).↵
    Donohue, M. J. Quantification of Legionella Pneumophila by QPCR and Culture in Tap Water with Different Concentrations of Residual Disinfectants and Heterotrophic Bacteria. Science of The Total Environment 2021, 774, 145142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.145142.
    OpenUrl
  86. (86).↵
    Rhoads, W. J.; Bradley, T. N.; Mantha, A.; Buttling, L.; Keane, T.; Pruden, A.; Edwards, M. A. Residential Water Heater Cleaning and Occurrence of Legionella in Flint, MI. Water Research 2020, 171, 115439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2019.115439.
    OpenUrl
  87. (87).
    Marchesi, I.; Ferranti, G.; Bargellini, A.; Marchegiano, P.; Predieri, G.; Stout, J. E.; Borella, P. Monochloramine and Chlorine Dioxide for Controlling Legionella Pneumophila Contamination: Biocide Levels and Disinfection by-Product Formation in Hospital Water Networks. Journal of Water and Health 2013, 11 (4), 738–747. https://doi.org/10.2166/wh.2013.079.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  88. (88).
    Marchesi, I.; Paduano, S.; Frezza, G.; Sircana, L.; Vecchi, E.; Zuccarello, P.; Oliveri Conti, G.; Ferrante, M.; Borella, P.; Bargellini, A. Safety and Effectiveness of Monochloramine Treatment for Disinfecting Hospital Water Networks. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 2020, 17 (17), 6116. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17176116.
    OpenUrl
  89. (89).
    Lytle, D. A.; Pfaller, S.; Muhlen, C.; Struewing, I.; Triantafyllidou, S.; White, C.; Hayes, S.; King, D.; Lu, J. A Comprehensive Evaluation of Monochloramine Disinfection on Water Quality, Legionella and Other Important Microorganisms in a Hospital. Water Research 2020, 116656. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2020.116656.
  90. (90).
    Huo, L.; Pan, L.; Chen, R.; Shi, B.; Wang, H.; He, S. Effects of Disinfectants and Particles on the Occurrence of Different Microorganisms in Drinking Water Distribution Systems. Environ. Sci.: Water Res. Technol. 2021, 7 (5), 983–992. https://doi.org/10.1039/D0EW01119C.
    OpenUrl
  91. (91).↵
    Bédard, E.; Fey, S.; Charron, D.; Lalancette, C.; Cantin, P.; Dolcé, P.; Laferrière, C.; Déziel, E.; Prévost, M. Temperature Diagnostic to Identify High Risk Areas and Optimize Legionella Pneumophila Surveillance in Hot Water Distribution Systems. Water Research 2015, 71, 244–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2015.01.006.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  92. (92).↵
    Rhoads, W. J.; Ji, P.; Pruden, A.; Edwards, M. A. Water Heater Temperature Set Point and Water Use Patterns Influence Legionella Pneumophila and Associated Microorganisms at the Tap. Microbiome 2015, 3 (1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40168-015-0134-1.
  93. (93).↵
    Darelid, J.; Löfgren, S.; Malmvall, B.-E. Control of Nosocomial Legionnaires’ Disease by Keeping the Circulating Hot Water Temperature above 55 C: Experience from a 10-Year Surveillance Programme in a District General Hospital. Journal of Hospital Infection 2002, 50, 213–219. https://doi.org/10.1053/jhin.2002.1185.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  94. (94).↵
    Hayes-Phillips, D.; Bentham, R.; Ross, K.; Whiley, H. Factors Influencing Legionella Contamination of Domestic Household Showers. 2019, 8.
  95. (95).↵
    Bédard, E.; Lévesque, S.; Martin, P.; Pinsonneault, L.; Paranjape, K.; Lalancette, C.; Dolcé, C.-É.; Villion, M.; Valiquette, L.; Faucher, S. P.; Prévost, M. Energy Conservation and the Promotion of Legionella Pneumophila Growth: The Probable Role of Heat Exchangers in a Nosocomial Outbreak. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology 2016, 37 (12), 1475–1480. https://doi.org/10.1017/ice.2016.205.
    OpenUrl
  96. (96).↵
    Bernander, S.; Jacobson, K.; Helbig, J. H.; Luck, P. C.; Lundholm, M. A Hospital-Associated Outbreak of Legionnaires’ Disease Caused by Legionella Pneumophila Serogroup 1 Is Characterized by Stable Genetic Fingerprinting but Variable Monoclonal Antibody Patterns. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 2003, 41 (6), 2503–2508. https://doi.org/10.1128/JCM.41.6.2503-2508.2003.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  97. (97).↵
    United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Reopening Buildings After Prolonged Shutdown or Reduced Operation, 2021.
  98. (98).
    United States Environmental Protection Agency. Maintaining or Restoring Water Quality in Buildings with Low or No Use, 2020.
  99. (99).↵
    ASHRAE. ASHRAE Guideline 12-2020: Managing the Risk of Legionellosis Associated with Building Water Systems, 2020.
  100. (100).↵
    Casteloes, K. S.; Brazeau, R. H.; Whelton, A. J. Decontaminating Chemically Contaminated Residential Premise Plumbing Systems by Flushing. Environ. Sci.: Water Res. Technol. 2015, 1 (6), 787–799. https://doi.org/10.1039/C5EW00118H.
    OpenUrl
  101. (101).↵
    Ra, K.; Odimayomi, T.; Ley, C.; Aw, T. G.; Rose, J. B.; Whelton, A. J. Finding Building Water Quality Challenges in a 7 Year Old Green School: Implications for Building Design, Sampling, and Remediation. Environ. Sci.: Water Res. Technol. 2020, 6 (10), 2691–2703. https://doi.org/10.1039/D0EW00520G.
    OpenUrl
  102. (102).↵
    Prussin, A. J.; Schwake, D. O.; Marr, L. C. Ten Questions Concerning the Aerosolization and Transmission of Legionella in the Built Environment. Building and Environment 2017, 123, 684–695. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2017.06.024.
    OpenUrl
  103. (103).
    Fraser, D. W. LEGIONELLOSIS: EVIDENCE OF AIRBORNE TRANSMISSION. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1980, 353 (1), 61–66. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1980.tb18906.x.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  104. (104).↵
    Cunha, B. A.; Burillo, A.; Bouza, E. Legionnaires’ Disease. The Lancet 2016, 387 (10016), 376–385. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60078-2.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  105. (105).
    Sydnor, E. R. M.; Bova, G.; Gimburg, A.; Cosgrove, S. E.; Perl, T. M.; Maragakis, L. L. Electronic-Eye Faucets: Legionella Species Contamination in Healthcare Settings. Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 2012, 33 (3), 235–240. https://doi.org/10.1086/664047.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  106. (106).
    Pruden, A.; Edwards, M. A.; Falkinham, J. O. State of the Science and Research Needs for Opportunistic Pathogens in Premise Plumbing; 4379; Water Research Foundation, 2013.
  107. (107).↵
    Donohue, M. J.; Vesper, S.; Mistry, J.; Donohue, J. M. Impact of Chlorine and Chloramine on the Detection and Quantification of Legionella Pneumophila and Mycobacterium Species. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 2019, 85 (24). https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.01942-19.
  108. (108).
    Mouchtouri, V.; Velonakis, E.; Tsakalof, A.; Kapoula, C.; Goutziana, G.; Vatopoulos, A.; Kremastinou, J.; Hadjichristodoulou, C. Risk Factors for Contamination of Hotel Water Distribution Systems by Legionella Species. Appl Environ Microbiol 2007, 73 (5), 1489– 1492. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.02191-06.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  109. (109).
    Borella, P.; Montagna, M. T.; Stampi, S.; Stancanelli, G.; Romano-Spica, V.; Triassi, M.; Marchesi, I.; Bargellini, A.; Tatò, D.; Napoli, C.; Zanetti, F.; Leoni, E.; Moro, M.; Scaltriti, S.; Ribera D’Alcalà, G.; Santarpia, R.; Boccia, S. Legionella Contamination in Hot Water of Italian Hotels. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 2005, 71 (10), 5805–5813. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.71.10.5805-5813.2005.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  110. (110).
    Donohue, M. J.; King, D.; Pfaller, S.; Mistry, J. H. The Sporadic Nature of Legionella Pneumophila, Legionella Pneumophila Sg1 and Mycobacterium Avium Occurrence within Residences and Office Buildings across 36 States in the United States. Journal of Applied Microbiology 2019, 126 (5), 1568–1579. https://doi.org/10.1111/jam.14196.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  111. (111).↵
    Boczek, L. A.; Tang, M.; Formal, C.; Lytle, D.; Ryu, H. Comparison of Two Culture Methods for the Enumeration of Legionella Pneumophila from Potable Water Samples. Journal of Water and Health 2021, 19 (3), 468–477. https://doi.org/10.2166/wh.2021.051.
    OpenUrl
  112. (112).
    Hirsh, M.; Baron, J. L.; Mietzner, S.; Rihs, J. D.; Stout, J. E. Cross-reactivity of the IDEXX Legiolert Method with Other Gram-negative Bacteria and Waterborne Pathogens Leads to False-positive Assay Results. Lett Appl Microbiol 2021, 72 (6), 750–756. https://doi.org/10.1111/lam.13469.
    OpenUrl
  113. (113).↵
    Monteiro, S. N.; Robalo, A. M.; Santos, R. J. Evaluation of Legiolert™ for the Detection of Legionella Pneumophila and Comparison with Spread-Plate Culture and QPCR Methods. Curr Microbiol 2021, 78 (5), 1792–1797. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00284-021-02436-6.
    OpenUrl
  114. (114).↵
    Ditommaso, S.; Ricciardi, E.; Giacomuzzi, M.; Arauco Rivera, S. R.; Ceccarelli, A.; Zotti, C. M. Overestimation of the Legionella Spp. Load in Environmental Samples by Quantitative Real-Time PCR: Pretreatment with Propidium Monoazide as a Tool for the Assessment of an Association between Legionella Concentration and Sanitary Risk. Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease 2014, 80 (4), 260–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2014.09.010.
    OpenUrl
  115. (115).↵
    Lee, J. V.; Lai, S.; Exner, M.; Lenz, J.; Gaia, V.; Casati, S.; Hartemann, P.; Lück, C.; Pangon, B.; Ricci, M. L.; Scaturro, M.; Fontana, S.; Sabria, M.; Sánchez, I.; Assaf, S.; Surman-Lee, S. An International Trial of Quantitative PCR for Monitoring Legionella in Artificial Water Systems: QPCR for Monitoring Legionella. Journal of Applied Microbiology 2011, 110 (4), 1032–1044. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2672.2011.04957.x.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  116. (116).↵
    Collins, S.; Stevenson, D.; Walker, J.; Bennett, A. Evaluation of Legionella Real-Time PCR against Traditional Culture for Routine and Public Health Testing of Water Samples. Journal of Applied Microbiology 2017, 122 (6), 1692–1703. https://doi.org/10.1111/jam.13461.
    OpenUrl
  117. (117).↵
    Wellinghausen, N.; Frost, C.; Marre, R. Detection of Legionellae in Hospital Water Samples by Quantitative Real-Time LightCycler PCR. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 2001, 67 (9), 3985–3993. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.67.9.3985-3993.2001.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  118. (118).↵
    ASHRAE. Standard 188-2018 -- Legionellosis: Risk Management for Building Water Systems, 2018.
  119. (119).↵
    Danila, R. N.; Koranteng, N.; Como-Sabetti, K. J.; Robinson, T. J.; Laine, E. S. Hospital Water Management Programs for Legionella Prevention, Minnesota, 2017. Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 2018, 39 (3), 336–338. https://doi.org/10.1017/ice.2017.310.
    OpenUrl
  120. (120).
    Singh, R.; Hamilton, K. A.; Rasheduzzaman, M.; Yang, Z.; Kar, S.; Fasnacht, A.; Masters, S. V.; Gurian, P. L. Managing Water Quality in Premise Plumbing: Subject Matter Experts’ Perspectives and a Systematic Review of Guidance Documents. Water 2020, 12 (2), 347. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12020347.
    OpenUrl
  121. (121).
    US CDC. Developing a Water Management Program to Reduce Legionella Growth & Spread in Buildings - A Practical Guide To Implementing Industry Standards, 2021.
  122. (122).↵
    Boppe, I.; Bédard, E.; Taillandier, C.; Lecellier, D.; Nantel-Gauvin, M.-A.; Villion, M.; Laferrière, C.; Prévost, M. Investigative Approach to Improve Hot Water System Hydraulics through Temperature Monitoring to Reduce Building Environmental Quality Hazard Associated to Legionella. Building and Environment 2016, 108, 230–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2016.08.038.
    OpenUrl
  123. (123).↵
    Julien, R.; Dreelin, E.; Whelton, A. J.; Lee, J.; Aw, T. G.; Dean, K.; Mitchell, J. Knowledge Gaps and Risks Associated with Premise Plumbing Drinking Water Quality. AWWA Water Science 2020, 2 (3). https://doi.org/10.1002/aws2.1177.
  124. (124).↵
    Gleason, J. A.; Cohn, P. D. A Review of Legionnaires’ Disease and Public Water Systems – Scientific Considerations, Uncertainties and Recommendations. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health 2022, 240, 113906. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheh.2021.113906.
    OpenUrl
  125. (125).↵
    Hamilton, K. A.; Hamilton, M. T.; Johnson, W.; Jjemba, P.; Bukhari, Z.; LeChevallier, M.; Haas, C. N.; Gurian, P. L. Risk-Based Critical Levels of Legionella Pneumophila for Indoor Water Uses. Environmental Science & Technology 2019, acs.est.8b03000. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b03000.
  126. (126).↵
    European Working Group for Legionella Infections. ESGLI European Technical Guidelines for the Prevention, Control and Investigation of Infections Caused by Legionella Species; European Guidelines Working Group, 2017.
  127. (127).↵
    Spies, K.; Pleischl, S.; Lange, B.; Langer, B.; Hübner, I.; Jurzik, L.; Luden, K.; Exner, M. Comparison of the Legiolert™/Quanti-Tray® MPN Test for the Enumeration of Legionella Pneumophila from Potable Water Samples with the German Regulatory Requirements Methods ISO 11731-2 and ISO 11731. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health 2018, 221 (7), 1047–1053. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheh.2018.07.006.
    OpenUrl
  128. (128).↵
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System, Weekly Tables of Infectious Disease Data https://www.cdc.gov/nndss/data-statistics/index.html.
  129. (129).↵
    Michigan Department of Health & Human Services. Michigan Experiencing Increase in Legionnaires’ Disease; 2021.
  130. (130).↵
    Wisconsin Department of Health Services. Legionellosis (Legionnaires’ Disease and Pontiac Fever); 2021.
  131. (131).↵
    Schweizerische Eidgenossenschaft Eidgenössisches Departement des Innern EDI. BAG-Bulletin Woche 30/2021 - Informationsmagazin für medizinische Fachpersonen und Medienschaffende; Bern, Switzerland, 2021.
  132. (132).↵
    Fischer, F. B.; Mäusezahl, D.; Wymann, M. N. Temporal Trends in Legionellosis National Notification Data and the Effect of COVID-19, Switzerland, 2000-2020; preprint; Epidemiology, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.01.19.22269395.
  133. (133).↵
    Verhasselt, H. L.; Buer, J.; Dedy, J.; Ziegler, R.; Steinmann, J.; Herbstreit, F.; Brenner, T.; Rath, P.-M. COVID-19 Co-Infection with Legionella Pneumophila in 2 Tertiary-Care Hospitals, Germany. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2021, 27 (5), 1535–1537. https://doi.org/10.3201/eid2705.203388.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  134. (134).
    Allam, C.; Gaymard, A.; Descours, G.; Ginevra, C.; Josset, L.; Bouscambert, M.; Beraud, L.; Ibranosyan, M.; Golfier, C.; Friggeri, A.; Lina, B.; Campèse, C.; Ader, F.; Jarraud, S.; COVID-19 diagnosis HCL consortium1. Co-Infection with Legionella and SARS-CoV-2, France, March 2020. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2021, 27 (11), 2864–2868. https://doi.org/10.3201/eid2711.202150.
    OpenUrl
  135. (135).↵
    Adler, H.; Ball, R.; Fisher, M.; Mortimer, K.; Vardhan, M. S. Low Rate of Bacterial Co-Infection in Patients with COVID-19. The Lancet Microbe 2020, 1 (2), e62. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2666-5247(20)30036-7.
    OpenUrl
  136. (136).↵
    Allen, J. G.; Myatt, T. A.; MacIntosh, D. L.; Ludwig, J. F.; Minegishi, T.; Stewart, J. H.; Connors, B. F.; Grant, M. P.; McCarthy, J. F. Assessing Risk of Health Care–Acquired Legionnaires’ Disease from Environmental Sampling: The Limits of Using a Strict Percent Positivity Approach. American Journal of Infection Control 2012, 40 (10), 917– 921. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2012.01.013.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  137. (137).↵
    Demirjian, A.; Lucas, C. E.; Garrison, L. E.; Kozak-Muiznieks, N. A.; States, S.; Brown, E. W.; Wortham, J. M.; Beaudoin, A.; Casey, M. L.; Marriott, C.; Ludwig, A. M.; Sonel, A. F.; Muder, R. R.; Hicks, L. A. The Importance of Clinical Surveillance in Detecting Legionnaires’ Disease Outbreaks: A Large Outbreak in a Hospital With a Legionella Disinfection System—Pennsylvania, 2011–2012. Clinical Infectious Diseases 2015, 60 (11), 1596–1602. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/civ153.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  138. (138).↵
    Casini, B.; Buzzigoli, A.; Cristina, M. L.; Spagnolo, A. M.; Giudice, P. D.; Brusaferro, S.; Poscia, A.; Moscato, U.; Valentini, P.; Baggiani, A.; Privitera, G. Long-Term Effects of Hospital Water Network Disinfection on Legionella and Other Waterborne Bacteria in an Italian University Hospital. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology 2014, 35 (3), 293– 299. https://doi.org/10.1086/675280.
    OpenUrl
  139. (139).↵
    Pfaller, S.; King, D.; Mistry, J. H.; Alexander, M.; Abulikemu, G.; Pressman, J. G.; Wahman, D. G.; Donohue, M. J. Chloramine Concentrations within Distribution Systems and Their Effect on Heterotrophic Bacteria, Mycobacterial Species, and Disinfection Byproducts. Water Research 2021, 117689. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2021.117689.
Back to top
Posted June 29, 2022.
Download PDF

Supplementary Material

Data/Code
Email
Legionella pneumophila occurrence in reduced-occupancy buildings in 11 cities during the COVID-19 pandemic
Katherine S. Dowdell, Hannah D. Greenwald, Sayalee Joshi, Marianne Grimard-Conea, Sarah Pitell, Yang Song, Christian Ley, Lauren C. Kennedy, Solize Vosloo, Linxuan Huo, Sarah-Jane Haig, Kerry A. Hamilton, Kara L. Nelson, Ameet Pinto, Michele Prévost, Caitlin R. Proctor, Lutgarde M. Raskin, Andrew J. Whelton, Emily Garner, Kelsey J. Pieper, William J. Rhoads
medRxiv 2022.06.28.22277022; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.06.28.22277022
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools

Subject Area