Journal of Environmental Management 152 (2015) 241e250

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Environmental Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jenvman

Review

Contamination of stormwater by wastewater: A review of detection

methods
Oleksandr Panasiuk*, Annelie Hedstro
€ m, Jiri Marsalek, Richard M. Ashley, Maria Viklander
Department of Civil, Environmental and Natural Resources Engineering, Luleå University of Technology, 97187 Luleå, Sweden

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Even in separate sewer systems, wastewater may find its way into the receiving waters through
Received 10 September 2014 stormwater sewers. The main reasons for this are cross-connections, illicit connections, overflows and
Received in revised form leakages through broken sewers. Such discharges may affect receiving water quality and increase risks to
19 January 2015
public health and aquatic organisms. Detecting wastewater contamination and locating its points of
Accepted 31 January 2015
Available online 4 February 2015
ingress into storm sewer systems can be a challenging task, which should be addressed using proper
methods and indicator parameters. A number of detection methods have already been proposed in this
area, yet there is a lack of a general overview of such methods. This literature review summarizes and
Keywords:
Stormwater contamination
evaluates the methods used for detecting wastewater in stormwater, including those recently developed.
Detection of wastewater The advantages, weaknesses and limitations of individual methods are discussed. It is concluded that
Indicator parameters while no single method can as yet produce results in a precise, fast and inexpensive way, the use of
Chemical and microbiological markers human waste specific chemical and microbiological markers, and their innovative sampling, offer the
way forward. Guidance for selecting the most effective combinations of detection methods, under spe-
cific conditions, is also provided.
© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction the contamination was of human origin. Further investigations

In spite of their name, separate sewer systems comprising
sanitary and storm sewers may not be fully separated (Schmidt and
Spencer, 1986). Where such systems do not include any stormwater
treatment, untreated sanitary sewage may find its way into the
receiving waters, impair their quality and increase the risks to
public health and aquatic organisms, especially where such waters
are used for drinking water supply or recreational purposes. There
are also habitat and ecological impacts, whose management is
becoming increasingly important under the EU Water Framework
Directive (EC, 2000).
Health threats of wastewater contamination can be illustrated
by two recent outbreaks of Cryptosporidium in the cities of
€
Ostersund and Skellefteå (Sweden) during the winter of
2010e2011. These outbreaks led to every third citizen of those
cities, more than 40, 000 persons in total, becoming ill (SMI, 2011).
€
Results of microbiological analyses from sampling in Ostersund
excluded animals as a source of contamination, which suggests that
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: oleksandr.panasiuk@ltu.se (O. Panasiuk).
discovered several possible reasons for the outbreak, including
wrong connections of wastewater pipes, wastewater overflows that
took place several months before the incident, and storm sewer
contamination by wastewater from an apartment block. Contami-
nated stormwater ultimately ended up in Storsjo € n Lake, which is
used for drinking water supply (SMI, 2011).
Pitt (2004) listed three main reasons for wastewater entry into
storm sewers: (a) wrong or illicit connections, (b) cross-
connections between sanitary and storm sewers, and (c) leakages
into the sewers through broken lines or poor pipe joints.
Detecting the presence of wastewater in stormwater systems
and locating its sources can be a challenging task for such reasons
as various potential sources of incoming wastewater, and great
differences in consistency, regularity and flow rate of inflows.
Where wastewater entry occurs via surrounding soils, some
filtration may have occurred, which will affect the content and
concentrations of contaminants. Furthermore, identifying the
sources of wastewater entering storm sewers and locating the
points of entry may be difficult due to contaminant dilution by
tributary stormwater flows. This becomes especially problematic
where study sites are situated far from wastewater inflows or
where there are multiple sources of wastewater ingress.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.01.050
0301-4797/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
242 O. Panasiuk et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 152 (2015) 241e250

Considering the significance and complexity of detecting provide a comprehensive source of information for scientists and
wastewater in stormwater, this type of investigation is invariably of practitioners dealing with wastewater detection issues.
great interest to both practitioners and researchers. To detect
wastewater efficiently and reliably, it is important to use appro-
priate methods and analyse the relevant indicator parameters. A
number of studies have been undertaken to date and focused on
2. Methods used for wastewater detection
single parameters or methods, e.g., temperature, (e.g. Hoes et al.,
2009; Lega and Napoli, 2010; Hoppe et al., 2011; Langeveld et al.,
The scrutiny of indicators and methods used for detection of
2012), single groups of parameters, e.g., microbiological indicators
wastewater in stormwater was based on such criteria as: detection
(e.g. Jagals and Grabow, 1996; Scott et al., 2002; Selvakumar and
efficiency; reliability, limitations and advantages of specific ap-
Borst, 2006; Mushi et al., 2010), and combinations of several
proaches; feasibility of on-line measurements; and, general
groups or methods, e.g., indicator bacteria and nutrients (e.g.,
method characteristics (such as time and resource required). The
Sankararamakrishnan and Guo, 2005; Peeler et al., 2006; Sauve
survey results were then presented in tables summarizing how well
et al., 2012). Practical procedures recommended by Pitt (2004)
the reported, or newly proposed, methods or indicators would
have been adopted by many municipalities for stormwater sur-
meet those criteria and could be used in practice, or serve for
veys, and Irvine et al. (2011) further advanced the implementation
further research.
of Pitt's ideas by focussing on low cost methods, including visual
In general, techniques for detection of wastewater contamina-
inspection, and measurements of temperature, conductivity, E. coli,
tion in stormwater can be divided into two groups: (a) sensory
and detergents.
evaluation methods (based on human sight and smell), and (b)
A literature survey identified only two recent comprehensive
methods measuring various indicators. With sensory methods,
reviews of methods for wastewater detection in stormwater,
conclusions are drawn from survey of stormwater and storm
providing an overall perspective. A comprehensive review by Pitt
sewers appearance and odour; indicator measurement methods
(2004) was published more than a decade ago and does not
use various equipment to measure specific characteristics of the
include the most up-to-date methods, including the distributed
sewer flow, e.g., the chemical composition. Indicator parameters
temperature sensing (Hoes et al., 2009). A more recent review by
may be conservative or non-conservative; the former ones change
Irvine et al. (2011) focused on low-cost methods only. Hence, the
their concentration along the system only by dilution, but con-
present literature review strives to overcome these limitations.
centrations of non-conservative parameters may also change dur-
The objectives of the present study were: (a) to provide an up-
ing their transport in sewers, because of in-sewer physical,
to-date critical review of the methods and indicator parameters
chemical and biological processes (Pitt, 2004).
that have been used for detecting the presence of wastewater in
The methods and indicator parameters addressed in this study
stormwater; (b) to evaluate the effectiveness of currently used
are listed in Table 1, together with their short descriptions and main
methods and the potential of those that could be used; and, (c) to
references.

Table 1
Detection methods and indicator parameters identified in the literature survey, with main references and short descriptions.

Detection method/Indicator References Short description

parameters

Sensory methods
Visual inspection Irvine et al. (2011), Pitt (2004) Used for initial characterization of the flow appearance and location of obvious
sources of contamination
Dye testing Tuomari and Thompson (2003) Flushing dye or blowing smoke into wastewater system and observing them in
Smoke testing Larsen et al. (2002); Tuomari the stormwater system to identify illicit and cross-connections
and Thompson (2003)
Video inspection Butler and Davies (2004) Locating connections in the system and monitoring sewer conditions
Odour inspection Fermanich (2009); Pitt (2004) Used for location of obvious sources of contamination
Public complaints Pitt (2004) Observation and reporting of severe contamination

Temperature
Grab sampling Pitt (2004) Indication of obvious pollution
On-line monitoring Schilperoort et al. (2006) Monitoring changes for detecting wastewater dilution by stormwater
Distributed temperature sensing Hoes et al. (2009) Advanced measurement of temperature over some distance, with high
Schilperoort and Clemens (2009) temporal and spatial resolutions
Aerial infrared photography Lega and Napoli (2010) Use of infrared cameras to detect abnormal temperatures at stormwater outlets

Chemical parameters
Ammonia Pitt (2004) Indicator of wastewater contamination
Conductivity Deffontis et al. (2013) Measuring conductivity (and other parameters)
Caffeine Sankararamakrishnan Use of caffeine and carbamazepine as human-specific indicators of
and Guo (2005); Sauve et al. (2012) wastewater contamination
Carbamazepine Sauve et al. (2012)
Chemicals measured by Fenner and Stuetz (1999); Use of electronic nose and tongue technologies for detecting specific contaminants
the electronic nose and tongue Dewettinck et al. (2001);
Campos et al. (2012)

Microbiological parameters
Common faecal indicator bacteria Pitt (2004), Irvine et al. (2011) Indicator bacteria used for faecal contamination detection
Antibiotic resistance, carbon Field and Samadpour (2007) Review of methods for faecal source tracking (known as microbial source
utilization profiling, bacteriophage tracking, MST); distinguishing human from non-human faecal pollution
methods, sorbitol-fermenting
bifidobacteria, DNA fingerprinting
 O. Panasiuk et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 152 (2015) 241e250
2.1. Sensory methods
Both visual and odour inspection are basic methods used in
preliminary investigations of possible stormwater contamination
by wastewater (Pitt, 2004; Fermanich, 2009; Irvine et al., 2011).
During such inspections, a sewer inspection or maintenance crew
describes the general appearance and odour of observed storm-
water flows. Visual inspections focus on obvious tracers, such as e.g.
the presence of toilet tissue, which indicates human faecal pollu-
tion. For odour inspection, the type of odour (e.g., sewage, sulphide,
petroleum, etc.) and its relative strength is of interest. As an alter-
native to human monitors, some success was had with using
trained dogs to track odours associated with illicit discharges
(Reynolds et al., 2008).
Dye testing is an investigative method for identifying the pres-
ence of wastewater. The dye is flushed with the wastewater flow
and its appearance in a stormwater sewer indicates a wrong or
illicit connection in the system (Tuomari and Thompson, 2003).
Dye testing has been shown to perform well in rather small
drainage areas (typically less than 10 properties) serving com-
mercial or industrial establishments. The method is most efficient if
a wastewater inflow is suspected to originate from a single prop-
erty. However, permissions to enter the property is usually needed
and may be difficult to obtain, especially for private households
(Pitt, 2004)
Smoke testing is a method for finding cross-connections that
may convey wastewater into storm sewers. It was often used to
study infiltration and inflow into sanitary sewers (Larsen et al.,
2002; Tuomari and Thompson, 2003). In this method, inert
smoke is blown into the stormwater sewer and locations where the
smoke leaves sewers are observed. While the method has been
shown to be efficient in identifying cross-connections or damage to
the stormwater system, it cannot detect all types of illicit discharges
(Pitt, 2004)
Video inspection or closed-circuit television (CCTV) inspection is a
well-developed technique for inspecting sewers. It uses a small
CCTV camera that is moved through the sewers while the image is
viewed and recorded at a ground station (usually an inspection
truck). This method can be used to detect both illicit connections
and infiltration through defective pipes. The average inspection
rate is 400e800 m of sewers per day (Butler and Davies, 2004)
Public complaints and reports by municipal field staff also fit
into this group, and typically focus on unusual colour of, or odour
emanating from, stormwater, increased turbidity or partial ice
cover melting in the vicinity of stormwater outlets, and may indi-
cate wastewater inflows at high flow rates.
In general, most of the sensory methods are rather subjective
(Dirksen and Clemens, 2008) and tend to produce false negative
results, i.e., failing to detect wastewater contamination (Pitt, 2004).
However, these methods can be effective when there is a wide-
spread or severe contamination of storm sewers by wastewater,
which is characterized by the presence of obvious indicators of
contamination. Such indicators may include unusual colours or
odours, or flows in storm sewers during dry weather. These flows
may represent uncontaminated groundwater inflow, but the same
flow route could be followed by wastewater exfiltrating from san-
itary sewers and hence require an appropriate attention in storm-
water contamination studies (Pitt, 2004). In spite of their
limitations, the sensory methods are widely used by many mu-
nicipalities for such reasons as low costs of implementation (except
for CCTV inspections), no needs for special equipment, and quick
provision of results. Therefore, these methods are recommended
for use during the initial stages of a wastewater detection pro-
gramme for preliminary identification of sites that may be
contaminated (Pitt, 2004).
243
2.2. Physical indicators e temperature
Different thermal characteristics of stormwater and wastewater
make temperature a potential indicator parameter for identifying
wastewater inflows into storm sewers (Schilperoort et al., 2006;
Hoes et al., 2009). In view of the ease and low cost of tempera-
ture measurements, it was suggested to include temperature in the
first stage of surveys serving to locate illicit wastewater connec-
tions (Pitt, 2004).
Temperature is a non-conservative parameter. Heat loss from a
water flow may be large, making any elevated temperature of
contaminated stormwater undetectable if the measuring point is
located too far from the source, or if the source is weak. In a study
performed during the month of October (i.e., in the early autumn in
the northern hemisphere) the stormwater temperature immediately
downstream from an illicit wastewater inflow was 10
C higher than
that of the unpolluted stormwater upstream of the inflow. However,
50 m downstream from the inflow location, no elevated tempera-
ture was detected (Hoes et al., 2009). Thus, temperature measure-
ments need to be conducted with high temporal and spatial
resolution, as done in Distributed Temperature Sensing (DTS).
DTS is a recently developed technique for detecting illicit
wastewater discharges into storm sewers, which allows on-line
temperature measurements in sewers, with high spatial and tem-
poral resolutions, by using a fibre-optic cable (Hoes et al., 2009;
Langeveld et al., 2012). Hoes et al. (2009) used DTS, with a 2 m
spatial resolution and 30 s temporal resolution to measure tem-
perature to a precision level of about 0.1
C along a stormwater
sewer approximately 1200 m long, during both dry and wet
weather. The level of precision that can be acquired is inversely
related to the spatial resolution used; thus, a spatial resolution of
1 m resulted in a precision level of 0.2
C. The fibre-optic cable
sensor detected abnormal temperature ranges, whose location
indicated the exact position of illicit connections in the system.
These findings were later confirmed by excavation work and
further verified by other results. Rainfall runoff was shown to have
a variable effect on stormwater temperature, increasing in one case,
but decreasing in another. Therefore, Hoes et al. (2009) recom-
mended searching for illicit connections in dry weather, when the
inflows of (cooler) groundwater are smaller.
Infrared aerial photography of receiving waters close to storm-
water outlets is a temperature-based method for detecting waste-
water contamination by using a high-resolution infrared camera
mounted on a plane or helicopter (Pitt, 2004). Note that currently,
one could take advantage of a much cheaper technology for these
aerial surveys by using unmanned aircrafts (drones). The technique
generates images displaying water temperatures as grey-scale or
colour-coded contours, in which discharges of stormwater
contaminated by substantially warmer wastewater are easily
distinguished from those corresponding to unpolluted stormwater.
Infrared filming is recommended during colder seasons when the
temperature contrast caused by wastewater contamination is
greater and there is less interference and obscuration by vegetation.
Night flights are also recommended in order to reduce interference
from the direct and reflected solar radiation occurring during
daylight hours (Pitt, 2004).
Infrared aerial photography has been successfully implemented
by CharlotteeMecklenburg Utilities in a study conducted during
winter (February 2002), when 62 heat anomalies were found along
a 45 km stretch of receiving waters (Brzozowski, 2004). Closer in-
vestigations showed different reasons for these anomalies,
including sanitary sewer cross-connections to storm sewers. More
recently, Lega and Napoli (2010) used an infrared camera with a
resolution of 640  480 pixels and a thermal sensitivity capable of
detecting temperature differences < 45 mK at a high-level of
244 O. Panasiuk et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 152 (2015) 241e250
accuracy of ±1%. The camera was carried aloft by different plat-
forms, including an ultralight aircraft, a tethered balloon, a
conventionally shaped mini blimp, and a Hybrid Lighter-than-Air
unmanned aerial vehicle, and it was also tested experimentally
on the ground. Infrared pictures showed a number of temperature
anomalies in several kilometres of coastline and inland waterways
inspected. For example, a small urban stream had a temperature
about 5
C higher than a tributary stream which originated from
agricultural land, suggesting that the urban stream was contami-
nated by wastewater from nearby households. Another picture
taken in the evening (at about 2100 h) showed elevated tempera-
tures of a stream discharging to the receiving waters. This obser-
vation and the presence of standard thermal patterns of
wastewater effluents led to the conclusion that the stream
conveyed illegal sanitary sewer inflows (Lega and Napoli, 2010).
2.3. Methods based on chemical parameters
2.3.1. Conductivity
Conductivity is a robust parameter used to characterize dis-
solved solids in water, including nitrate, chloride, phosphate, and
sulphate anions, or calcium, aluminium, iron, magnesium, and so-
dium cations (APHA, 2012). Conductivity was identified as a po-
tential indicator parameter for detecting illicit discharges, mainly of
industrial flows (Pitt, 2004). Although its potential for wastewater
detection is average (50e80% of samples can be distinguished from
unpolluted stormwater), conductivity can be combined with other
parameters to produce good results (Pitt, 2004).
Deffontis et al. (2013) studied conductivity of stormwater in a
separate sewer system in Toulouse, France, and found it to be
significantly correlated with nitrate (R2 ¼ 0.667) and turbidity
(R2 ¼ 0.661), and strongly correlated with total phosphorus
(R2 ¼ 0.834). The correlation between conductivity and phosphorus
was explained by the presence of ionic phosphorus from fertilizers
(ammonium phosphate) likely to have been used in the area
(Deffontis et al., 2013). Conductivity measurements could be
compromised in regions with salt use in winter maintenance of
roads, sidewalks and parking lots (Marsalek, 2003).
2.3.2. Caffeine and carbamazepine
Recent searches for an “ideal” indicator of wastewater presence
in the environment focused on two chemicals associated almost
exclusively with human waste, caffeine and carbamazepine. A
number of studies have shown the presence of caffeine in water to
be an effective indicator of human faecal contamination (Buerge
et al., 2003; Ferreira, 2005; Kurissery et al., 2012; Peeler et al.,
2006; Sankararamakrishnan and Guo, 2005; Seiler et al., 1999;
Siegener and Chen, 2002; Standley et al., 2000). Caffeine has also
been used as a chemical marker for faecal source tracking (Field and
Samadpour, 2007; Scott et al., 2002). Its definite advantage is that it
is almost entirely a human-specific pollutant; natural sources of
caffeine in the environment (e.g. guarana, coffee plants) are so few
and generate such low background levels that they can be neglec-
ted, especially in the Northern hemisphere (Peeler et al., 2006).
Analytical methods for detecting and quantifying caffeine
include GC-MS-SIM (gas chromatography d mass spectrometry d
selected-ion monitoring), GC-MS-MS-MRM (multi-reaction moni-
toring), SPE-LCeMS/MS (solid phase extraction coupled to liquid
chromatography and tandem mass spectrometry), and their
detection levels range from 1.0 to 20.0 ng/l in final solution
(Sankararamakrishnan and Guo, 2005; Sauve et al., 2012; Kurissery
et al., 2012).
Sankararamakrishnan and Guo (2005) used caffeine (together
with a fluorescent whitening agent and anionic surfactants) as a
chemical indicator of human faecal contamination in stormwater.
Samples were collected directly from stormwater outlets at five
locations during rain events and in the receiving lake, close to the
outlets during both wet and dry weather. At one of the outlets,
caffeine concentrations increased in wet weather by up to 200
times, compared to dry weather concentrations. This result and
other less marked observations indicated the presence of signifi-
cant wastewater inputs to storm sewers in wet weather at all the
locations studied (Sankararamakrishnan and Guo, 2005).
Sauve et al. (2012) set an arbitrary caffeine concentration
threshold of 400 ng/l as indicative of human waste. Results showed
that 32% of samples with concentrations of faecal coliforms greater
than 200 CFU/100 ml had less than 400 ng/l of caffeine. This was
explained by faecal pollution from non-human sources, pets and
wildlife. Conversely, 100% of samples that exceeded the caffeine
threshold also had more than 200 CFU/100 ml of faecal coliforms.
Thus, elevated levels of caffeine provide strong indication of human
faecal pollution (Sauve et al., 2012).
Carbamazepine is an anticonvulsant drug and mood stabilizer
typically used only by humans and, therefore, a good human-
specific tracer of faecal contamination (Glassmeyer et al., 2005;
Gasser et al., 2011; Daneshvar et al., 2012; Sauve et al., 2012). It is
very persistent in the environment and can be easily detected even
at low concentrations. Although carbamazepine is used far less
than products containing caffeine and, therefore, is not so wide-
spread, compared to caffeine, carbamazepine content in waste-
water changes little even after it passed through wastewater
treatment processes (Sauve et al., 2012). Daneshvar et al. (2012)
noted that untreated wastewater was characterized by a high ra-
tio of caffeine/carbamazepine, and there were no strong correla-
tions between carbamazepine and caffeine (R2 ¼ 0.004) or faecal
coliform bacteria (R2 ¼ 0.072). Apart from the possible presence of
non-human faecal contaminants, such weak correlations might be
explained by a limited and unevenly distributed number of users of
carbamazepine-containing drugs (Sauve et al., 2012).
2.3.3. Nutrients
Although phosphorus, ammonium, nitrate, and particulate ni-
trogen are not definitive contaminants of wastewater
(Sankararamakrishnan and Guo, 2005), some researchers have
used these markers as indicators of wastewater in stormwater. For
example, Pitt (2004) suggested ammonia as a good indicator of
illicit discharges of wastewater, particularly when ammonia-
nitrogen concentrations exceed a benchmark value of 0.3 mg/l.
Ammonia is often used as a single indicator parameter by
municipal authorities in areas that suffer from widespread or se-
vere wastewater contamination (Pitt, 2004). However, such an
approach may be ineffective where: (i) the wastewater inflows are
diluted or contain low ammonia concentrations; and, (ii) other dry
weather discharges (e.g., irrigation) are present (Pitt, 2004). Where
a distinction between the possible presence of sanitary wastewater
or wash-water is needed, a benchmark value of the ammonia/po-
tassium ratio can be used; in most cases, the ammonia/potassium
ratio would exceed 1.0 in sanitary sewage. This ratio might vary
among different communities and a preliminary study on specific
ammonia/potassium ratios for wash-water and wastewater has
been recommended (Pitt, 2004).
2.3.4. Electronic nose and tongue
Many Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Programs
implemented by US municipalities recommend odour inspections to
be done in conjunction with visual inspections, particularly when
performing a preliminary characterization of the sewer flow quality
(Fermanich, 2009). To characterize flow odour or taste (i.e., pres-
ence of indicators) and to quantify their strengths, sensing tech-
nologies named “electronic noses” or “electronic tongues” have
 O. Panasiuk et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 152 (2015) 241e250
been developed. These technologies mimic human sensory re-
ceptors by electronic sensors that can generate a signal pattern
related to either a quality aspect or a specific compound in water
samples (Campos et al., 2012). The synthesis of signals from arrays
of sensors tuned to different compounds produces a unique odour
or taste fingerprint, which is then analysed by pattern recognition
or neural network techniques (Canhoto and Magan, 2003). An
electronic nose was used in water and wastewater analysis (e.g.
Fenner and Stuetz, 1999; Baby et al., 2000; Dewettinck et al., 2001)
to detect small concentrations of different chemicals (ammonia,
H2S, nitrobenzene and other volatile compounds) (Baby et al.,
2000; Dewettinck et al., 2001) and distinguish between different
sources of wastewater (Fenner and Stuetz, 1999). An electronic
tongue was successfully used in the analysis of wastewater inflow
and outflow by Campos et al. (2012) and was an effective tool for
predicting COD, BOD, ammonia, orthophosphate and sulphate
concentrations (Campos et al., 2012).
2.4. Methods based on microbiological parameters
The methods discussed in this section can be divided into two
groups: those based on measurements of indicator bacteria con-
centrations, and the more recent methods developed for microbial
source tracking (MST).
2.4.1. Indicator bacteria concentrations
The most commonly used faecal indicator bacteria include faecal
coliform, E. coli and enterococci (Peeler et al., 2006); other indicators
include total coliforms and Clostridium perfringens (Scott et al.,
2002). In general, all microbiological parameters are non-
conservative, because microorganisms can either die off or be
generated by reproductive and metabolic processes.
Irvine et al. (2011) used E. coli concentrations to identify
wastewater contamination in storm sewers. After a preliminary
visual inspection of the flow, the concentrations of E. coli were
measured at the storm sewer outfall, after 72 h of dry weather, even
though there was still some low flow in the sewer. A threshold of
12,000 CFU/100 ml, proposed by Pitt (2004), was used in this study
as indicative of wastewater contamination. In order to track down
the points of contamination entry into the system, the tracking
procedure recommended by Pitt (2004) was followed by collecting
upstream samples until the E. coli concentrations fell below the
threshold (Irvine et al., 2011).
Sankararamakrishnan and Guo (2005) found significant corre-
lations among indicator bacteria (Enterococci, faecal coliform and
faecal streptococci, r > 0.9), and the above three microbiological
indicators and caffeine (r > 0.95), BOD (r > 0.8), and COD (r > 0.7;
p < 0.01). Such correlations were interpreted as indicative of the
presence of wastewater in stormwater.
Jagals and Grabow (1996) used successfully sorbitol-fermenting
bifidobacteria analyses for wastewater detection. Because of rapid
die-off rates (hours to days) the presence of sorbitol-fermenting
bifidobacteria is mainly used as an indicator of recent faecal
pollution events (Jagals and Grabow, 1996; Mushi et al., 2010).
2.4.2. Microbial source tracking (MST)
Recently developed MST were reviewed by Field and
Samadpour (2007), Tyagi et al. (2009), and Harwood et al. (2014),
who assessed the ability of selected methods to distinguish be-
tween human and non-human sources of faecal contamination, as
detailed below.
The antibiotic resistance method of faecal source tracking is
based on the assumption that humans, and domestic and wild
animals are each exposed differently to antibiotics, thus, bacteria
from individual species' faeces will exhibit differences in antibiotic
245
resistance in both the type and strength. However, antibiotic
resistance methods produced unsatisfactory results both in blind
sample identification and in comparison to other faecal source
tracking methods (Field and Samadpour, 2007)
Carbon utilization profiling, which is also known as biochemical or
phenotypic fingerprinting, is based on an analysis of utilization pro-
files of carbon sources by faecal indicator bacteria. Commercially
available microplate systems containing a substrate for bacterial
growth are used for pattern generation. The method has passed the
biological likelihood test, but has produced unsatisfactory results in
two comparative studies (Field and Samadpour, 2007)
Bacteriophage methods are based on certain strains of Bacteroides
that are only able to grow bacteriophages from specific sources of
sewage. The detection of B. fragilis could be used to identify
contamination by human faeces, but it is uncommon in some
geographic areas, including the US and Canada (Payan et al., 2005).
New strains of B. thetaiotaomicron and B. ovatus were therefore
suggested. Bacteriophage methods produced good results in a
comparative study by Field and Samadpour (2007).
Go mez-Don~ ate et al. (2012) reported consistent results when
using host-specific species of Bifidobacteria for distinguishing be-
tween four hosts: humans, cattle, pigs, and poultry. Human host-
specific bacterial strains were B. dentium and B. adolescentis. Faecal
source tracking methods based on sorbitol-fermenting bifidobacteria
were thought to be effective. However, sorbitol-fermenting bifido-
bacteria have short survival times in sewers, and during warm sea-
sons, they may not be detected at all (Field and Samadpour, 2007).
Several MST methods are classified as DNA fingerprinting: ribo-
typing, repetitive extragenic palindromic polymerase chain reac-
tion (REP-PCR), pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE), and other
related methods. DNA fingerprinting methods are based on the
detection of known host-specific strains in DNA of analysed mi-
croorganisms. Several studies on the development of these tech-
niques have been undertaken during the last decade (e.g. Call et al.,
2007; Shanks et al., 2007; Moore et al., 2005). In general, DNA
fingerprinting methods produced good results, with high sensi-
tivity and specificity in distinguishing between many different
sources (such as humans, ruminants, dogs, gulls etc.) (Call et al.,
2007; Tourlousse et al., 2008), although for some methods the
adequate DNA concentration is of concern (Caldwell et al., 2007).
Harwood et al. (2014) noted rapid progress in the development of
MST and suggested a quick “surpassing” of the current capabilities
of these methods.
2.5. Combined methods
The robustness of the methods for detecting wastewater in
storm sewers can be increased by combining two or more of the
earlier discussed methods. Examples of three such combinations
follow.
2.5.1. System-wide approaches
Pitt (2004) developed a practical system-wide strategy for
identifying illicit connections of wastewater source to storm
sewers, comprising two main parts: (1) Field screening and iden-
tification of locations with obvious or highly probable wastewater
contamination; and, (2) planning and performing an advanced
chemical monitoring programme. In field screening, the Outfall
Reconnaissance Inventory (ORI) is first compiled using such
methods as visual and odour inspections, as well as simple field
measurements (e.g., by portable thermometers, or litmus indicator
papers, etc.). This step helps identify the priority locations, where
contamination is obviously present.
In the second step, an advanced monitoring programme is
performed using such indicator constituents as ammonia, boron,
246 O. Panasiuk et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 152 (2015) 241e250

Table 2
Advantages and limitations of methods for detecting wastewater in stormwater systems.

Detection method/Indicator parameter Advantages Limitations

Sensory methods Generally inexpensive Difficulties to detect low wastewater inflows

Visual inspection Quick, no need of special equipment Shown to be subjective (Dirksen and Clemens, 2008); may be
ineffective if wastewater inflows are low; can be used only at
manholes or in large-enough pipes (safety concerns)
Dye testing Simple, source-specific method Requires access to private properties; high turbidity or elevated
stormwater flow rates make the dye less detectable; low-flow
rates render the method too time consuming
Smoke testing Rather inexpensive Used mostly for locating stormwater pipes connected to
wastewater sewers
Video inspection Detects both illicit connections and defects allowing Observing illicit discharges during non-peak hours is less likely
infiltration through pipe cracks and joints than during morning and evening peaks (Butler et al., 1995);
requires time-consuming processing of the video footage in the
office
Odour inspection Quick, no need of special equipment Subjective; possible only at manholes or in large-enough pipes
(safety concerns)
Public complaints Rather inexpensive; covers large areas; empowers the Contamination may be detected/reported only if the
public to get involved in pollution protection wastewater inflows are really high, or when dealing with
specific industrial wastewaters that are easy to observe
Temperature A common characteristic of both wastewater and Non-conservative parameter; stormwater temperatures may
stormwater that can be measured inexpensively on-line rise or fall during storms (a source of uncertainty); observed
thermal anomalies during “normal” flow patterns
Grab sampling Simple and robust measurements; relatively inexpensive Provides temperatures over relatively short time periods at a
equipment fixed measuring point
On-line Simple and robust measurements that can extend over Fixed measuring point
long-time periods
Distributed temperature sensing Measurements can cover long distances and time periods; Very expensive; equipment (cable) installation is time-
high spatial and temporal resolution; high precision consuming
Aerial infrared photography Relatively fast coverage of large areas Relatively expensive equipment; works well for high
wastewater inflows of sufficiently high temperatures;
applications in late autumn, winter or early spring are
recommended to minimize vegetation interference and
maximize temperature differences; daylight solar radiation
could reduce method efficiency, flights during nights are
recommended; requires an experienced pilot; further advances
and cost reductions could be achieved by using drones for aerial
photography
Chemical indicators Can detect human-waste specific indicators with high Analyses of human-specific indicators (e.g., caffeine and
accuracy; common chemical indicators (conductivity and carbamazepine) are relatively expensive; laboratory turn-
ammonia) can be applied inexpensively around time slows done the survey implementation; so far,
applied mostly in research studies; common chemical
indicators (conductivity and ammonia) are found in both
wastewater and stormwater, this lowers the detection
sensitivity
Ammonia Common parameter; good indication of wastewater Non-conservative parameter; its presence in stormwater
presence reduces the detection sensitivity
Conductivity Simple, robust measurements; determine total dissolved Sharp variations during measurements; observed anomalies in
solids content normal flow behaviour; readings could be confounded by inflow
of salt-laden runoff into storm sewers (in regions where salt is
used as a de-icing agent during the winter and spring)
Caffeine Conservative tracer; few natural sources (especially in the Costly analysis; a minimal interference by few natural sources
Northern hemisphere) (in Southern hemisphere)
Carbamazepine Very conservative; persistent even when subject to Specialized analyses are needed; concentrations vary
wastewater treatment processes depending on varying carbamazepine use in different regions
Indicator parameters measured Detection of specific compounds, odours or water quality Recently developed technology, not yet adequately tested;
by electronic nose and tongue characteristics some types are not so effective in measuring concentrations
(quantitative information) of the detected compounds (Wilson,
2012); signal interference by high concentration contaminants
Microbiological parameters Broadly ranging methods employing both common Non-conservative parameters; common indicator bacteria may
indicator bacteria as well as source-specific indicators not distinguish between specific bacteria sources; microbial
(microbial source tracking) tracking methods are still subject to research and development
Common FIB Widely used indicators of faecal pollution Detection uncertainty is caused by origin from both human and
animal sources
Antibiotic resistance Distinguishes human, agricultural and wild animal sources Not geographically or temporally stable; reproducibility is
highly sensitive to proper analytical procedures; poor results
from blind samples
Carbon utilization profiling Distinguishes human, agricultural and wild animal sources; Poor results in comparative studies; some methods are only at
passed biological likelihood test an early stage of development
Bacteriophage methods Distinguishes human and non-human sources Some species are uncommon in specific geographic areas,
including the US and Canada; irregular distribution
geographically and within populations
Sorbitol-fermenting bifidobacteria Distinguishes human and non-human sources; considered Short survival time in the environment, especially during
as strong method in Europe summer time; cannot be detected if water temperature is high;
rarely occur in pigs
DNA fingerprinting Distinguishes any source Relatively time-consuming and expensive analyses (Call et al.,
2007; Tourlousse et al., 2008); extreme importance of the DNA
library size
 O. Panasiuk et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 152 (2015) 241e250
chlorine, colour, conductivity, detergents, E. coli, Enterococci, total
coliform, fluorescence, fluoride, hardness, pH, potassium, surface
tension, surfactants, and turbidity (Pitt, 2004). By comparing the
indicator concentrations with their suggested thresholds, one or
more possible sources of illicit discharges are identified: waste-
water, wash-water, tap water, and industrial or commercial
wastewater. Therefore, the combination of indicators is needed to
identify specific sources of contamination. For practical applica-
tions, Pitt (2004) developed a flow chart indicating sequences of
different analyses and their respective thresholds. For detecting
wastewater, the following simplified procedure applies:
1. Determine concentrations of E. coli and/or Enterococci, if above
12,000 CFU/100 ml and 5000 CFU/100 ml, respectively, there is a
likelihood of sanitary wastewater contamination (Irvine et al.,
2011).
2. Where concentrations of microbiological indicators do not
exceed the above thresholds, concentrations of detergents and
boron should be checked. High content of these substances in
sewers indicates origins from households or washing facilities. If
the concentration of detergents is less than 0.25 mg/l or of boron
less than 0.35 mg/l, other types of inflow sources (irrigation, or
natural or tap water) are likely present.
3. Additional analyses of the ammonia/potassium ratio may be
needed to distinguish between the possible presence of sanitary
wastewater (when the a/p ratio > 1.0) and wash-water (the a/p
ratio < 1.0) (Pitt, 2004).
2.5.2. Temperature and conductivity
Schilperoort et al. (2006) used conductivity together with
temperature measurements for detecting wastewater dilution by
stormwater, but their methodology could be applied for detecting
stormwater contamination by wastewater addressed herein.
Simultaneous on-line measurements of conductivity and temper-
ature, during both dry and wet weather, showed that: (i) conduc-
tivity fluctuated more sharply than temperature during dry
weather, and (ii) In wet weather, conductivity dropped distinctly to
relatively low values indicating wastewater dilution by stormwater
inflow (Schilperoort et al., 2006). Therefore, it can be assumed that
a sharp increase in flow conductivity in storm sewers may indicate
illicit wastewater connections, providing that there are sufficient
inflows of wastewater with elevated conductivity.
2.5.3. Caffeine and microbiological indicators
Caffeine can be used in combination with microbiological in-
dicators to prove a human origin of faecal contamination. Sauve
et al. (2012) found that all samples with caffeine
concentrations > 400 ng/l also had elevated concentrations of
faecal coliforms above 200 CFU/100 ml. Sankararamakrishnan and
Guo (2005) concluded that even a low caffeine concentration with
an elevated faecal coliform count is a strong indication of faecal
pollution from human sources.
3. Discussion
3.1. Challenges and method limitations
The process of detecting wastewater in stormwater systems may
be impaired by various issues that reduce the process effectiveness
or make it fairly complex and expansive. Among such issues, one
could include: (i) wastewater source related problems, e.g., random
nature of intermittent wastewater inflows of greatly varying flow
rates, often occurring outside the normal business hours, rendering
visual and odour inspections impossible; (ii) infrastructure related
247
problems, including limited (or no) access to the points of entry of
wastewater into the storm sewer systems; multiple sources of
wastewater contamination within the system; and, (iii) detection
programme related limitations, including insufficient manpower,
lack of expertise, limited financial resources, long turn-around
times of sample analyses, poor accuracy and availability of sewer
systems documentation, unreliable equipment or methods used,
etc. (NPDES, 2008). Most of these limitations apply not just to the
wastewater sources, but to the analyses of stormwater as well. To
facilitate the selection of methods for detecting wastewater in
stormwater systems, advantages and limitations of individual
methods are summarized in Table 2.
The limitations of the methods reviewed relate primarily to: a)
the characteristics of the chosen indicator parameters; b) ratio of
the wastewater flow rate to the stormwater flow, (c) the procedure
for detecting the indicator (sensory assessment, grab sampling or
online monitoring); and, (d) practical aspects (resources available).
Further discussion of these limitations follows.
3.1.1. Ideal wastewater contamination indicator parameter
Pitt (2004) defined an ideal indicator for detecting wastewater
contamination in stormwater as a parameter having the following
properties: (i) occurring in wastewater and stormwater at consid-
erably different concentrations, which only slightly vary within
each flow stream; (ii) possess conservative properties; and, (iii)
measurable by simple, reliable, accurate, and safe methods. Scott
et al. (2002) focused on ideal indicator microorganisms, which
should be: (i) non-pathogenic (ii) present in sufficient quantities to
be detectable; (iii) easily countable; (iv) exist in a constant ratio to
pathogens; (v) possessing survival characteristics similar to those
of pathogens; (vi) unable to reproduce outside the host; and, (vii)
able to enter the environment only from the faeces of warm-
blooded animals. Both references concluded that there was no
ideal indicator parameter available (Pitt, 2004; Scott et al., 2002)
and, consequently, one needs to look for an indicator, which in the
given circumstances mimics the essential characteristics of the
ideal indicator as closely as possible.
Further examination of Pitt's definition (2004) indicates that
only the first two properties are substantive; the third one is given
by operational and resource limitations, which could be overcome.
Examination of information in Table 2 indicates that caffeine and
carbamazepine more or less meet the substantive requirements
and could be recommended for further studies of contamination by
wastewater. Both are conservative, which distinguishes them from
the majority of indicators listed in Tables 1 and 2 (e.g. appearance,
odour, temperature, conductivity, microbiological indicators,
different forms of phosphorus and nitrogen, etc.). However, com-
binations of non-conservative parameters may improve the feasi-
bility of detecting wastewater contamination in general (Juanico
et al., 1990).
In the case of indicator microorganisms, the situation is even
more complex, but the best potential is shown by DNA finger
printing and sorbitol-fermenting bifidobacteria. It should be
acknowledged that a recent review of MST methods by Harwood
et al. (2014) indicated rapid development of MST methods and
suggested that the current capabilities of MST methods will be
“rapidly surpassed”. Hence, MST methods, whose field application
is beyond the capacity of the current municipal expertise, are likely
to reach the level of applicability in wastewater detection in
stormwater. Other indicators listed in Tables 1 and 2 may serve
specific purposes in relatively simple cases of wastewater
contamination detection, particularly when dealing with signifi-
cant continual inflows of wastewater or detection in dry weather.
248 O. Panasiuk et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 152 (2015) 241e250
3.1.2. Ratio of the wastewater and stormwater flow rates (QWW/
QSW)
The role of the flow ratio can be illustrated by writing the mass
conservation equation for a conservative tracer transported by
steady fully mixed flow as
QSW CSW þ QWW CWW
CX ¼ ;
QSW þ QWW
where CX d tracer concentration in a fully mixed sample,
QSW , QWW d the respective flow rates of stormwater and
inflowing wastewater,
CSW , CWW d the concentrations of the respective indicators in
stormwater and inflowing wastewater.
In sewers with baseflow, the above equation could be expanded
for the baseflow (BF) term, QBFCBF, and even if CBF would equal zero,
there would be dilution of the tracer by the baseflow. In a trivial
case, with no stormwater flow or baseflow in the sewer, CX ¼ CWW,
which clearly indicates advantages of conducting contamination
surveys in dry weather. The most challenging is the case when the
wastewater inflow is intermittent and during short-periods of
discrete sampling the wastewater contamination may be missed.
This issue can be addressed by online monitoring of surrogate in-
dicators (e.g., conductivity, or other chemicals for which on-line
sensors are available), or by using passive samplers, which are
fairly common in other fields of environmental monitoring (Stuer-
Lauridsen, 2005; Vrana et al., 2005). For low wastewater flows,
(QWW =QSW /0), an indicator parameter needs to be used that is
totally absent in unpolluted stormwater flow (CSW ¼ 0), but present
in wastewater. Even a low concentration of such parameter in the
sample (CX > 0) will then indicate wastewater contamination,
provided that the measured concentration is higher than the
minimum detection level of the method used. Caffeine is one
example of such a parameter. Where the indicator occurs in similar
or overlapping concentrations in both wastewater and stormwater
(CWW zCSW ), even relatively high inflows of wastewater may not be
detected with sufficient certainty. Examples of such parameters
with overlapping concentrations include turbidity and pH.
3.1.3. Operational aspects of indicator sampling
Surveys of stormwater contamination by wastewater are typi-
cally conducted by sampling of flows in the stormwater system,
using either grab sampling or on-line monitoring. Both methods
have advantages and disadvantages as discussed below.
The main advantage of grab sampling is the broad choice
of parameters, for which such samples can be analysed in
the laboratory, including the earlier identified strong
indicators. On the other hand, the measurement of water quality
constituents in grab samples suffers from several significant
drawbacks:
 Time lag in obtaining analytical results, which extends the
duration of contamination surveys.
 Urban dwellers discharge domestic wastewater over a period of
around 30 min per person per 24 h (Butler et al., 1995). The
probability of taking a sample during the narrow window when
such wastewater enters the stormwater system may be very
low, especially if samples are taken in close proximity to the
source.
 On the other hand, grab samples collected far from the discharge
point may contain wastewater diluted by stormwater flows.
 Costs of chemical analyses.
Grab sampling offers some advantages, including the speed of
collection of samples at many locations during field surveys (for
example, in the first step of a pollution detection programme)
compared to the time-consuming process of installing on-line
loggers and other equipment. Also, the cost of acquiring sampling
or monitoring equipment are avoided.
The greatest advantage of on-line methods is their ability to log
measurements and other information almost continuously for long
periods of time (although brief interruptions may be necessary for
data extraction or probe cleaning, etc.). This makes it possible to
track variation in indicator parameter concentration over time, and
to detect any daily or seasonal patterns, or unexpected sudden
changes.
The disadvantages of on-line methods in comparison to grab
sampling include higher investment costs and the time spent
installing the equipment. However, in the case of extensive surveys
of long duration, the initial installation and operational costs are
fully justified.
In general, grab sampling can be used in the preliminary stage
of a wastewater contamination detection programme, collecting
samples at strategically selected downstream and upstream
points in the sewer system, in order to maximize the probability of
detecting periodical incursions of wastewater. After identifying
the points of interest, on-line equipment should be installed in
order to continuously monitor suspicious flows. For such mea-
surements, Hoppe et al. (2011) suggested the following criteria for
selecting the indicator parameters to be measured on-line: (1) in-
situ measurements should yield stable and continuous on-line
readings; (2) the main contaminants in the sewer flow being
monitored should be represented by the indicator parameter; and
(3) regulatory authorities should agree with the choice of in-
dicators and establish their permissible concentrations. For
detecting wastewater in stormwater, it is particularly important
that the on-line monitored parameters yield stable on-line read-
ings and their concentrations in stormwater and wastewater are
significantly different.
3.2. Future research
The detection of wastewater contamination in stormwater sys-
tems is a complex problem, particularly where dealing with large
systems and small (yet potentially harmful) inflows of wastewater.
The authors believe that further advances in this field will come
from further development and applications of human-waste spe-
cific markers and their quasi-continuous monitoring in stormwater
systems. Among chemical markers, caffeine and carbamazepine are
primary candidates, though further research may yield other
human-specific chemical markers, including some pharmaceuti-
cals. Microbiological markers are rapidly being developed, as
evident, e.g., by comparing two recent review papers in this field,
Field and Samadpour (2007) and Harwood et al. (2014). The authors
of the latter paper suggested that the current capabilities of MST
methods will be “rapidly surpassed” and the new methods are
likely to become quickly fully operational. Inherently, the main
concern about wastewater contamination of stormwater concerns
mostly pathogens, and, therefore, microbiological markers should
exhibit similar behaviour in the environment, and be adopted
preferentially, in comparison to the chemical markers. The
remaining issue concerns intermittent inflows of wastewater into
stormwater systems, which could be addressed by developing
passive sampling devices for either chemical or microbiological
markers, and further refinement of the electronic nose and tongue
technologies. The experience with passive sampling of chemicals is
fairly extensive (Vrana et al., 2005; Stuer-Lauridsen, 2005) and their
adaptation to the problem at hand may be feasible. The passive
sampling of microbiological markers may prove to be infeasible. As
operational problems with human-specific markers and their
 O. Panasiuk et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 152 (2015) 241e250
sampling are resolved, their use in municipal wastewater
contamination surveys should become feasible. In the meantime,
the municipal surveys are likely to rely on the use of combinations
of simple indicators, which may be adequate for cases of larger
wastewater contamination.
4. Conclusions
Detection of wastewater in stormwater systems requires a
complex approach comprising comprehensive planning, pre-
liminary reconnaissance of sewer systems, development of a
detailed strategy, and execution of field measurements by
appropriate methods. The indicator parameters and methods
presented in this review all have the potential to detect storm-
water contamination by wastewater, under specific circum-
stances and subject to limitations. The task of developing a
successful plan for a specific situation depends on the ability to
identify those conditions, which invoke those limitations, and
how they could be minimized. The best indication of wastewater
contamination is provided by human waste specific indicators,
i.e., chemical (e.g., caffeine and carbamazepine) and microbio-
logical markers (adopted in MST methods), whose field applica-
tions require further development with respect to making them
fully operational and detecting intermittent episodes of
contamination. For municipal practice, the lack of inexpensively
applicable universal indicators points to the need to use combi-
nations of methods adjusted for specific cases. Several indicators
may reinforce each other, if one can minimize another's specific
limitations and uncertainties, or if one or another can bring new
and valuable information.
To develop the wastewater detection methodology further, it is
further suggested to undertake: (i) Comparative evaluations of the
current or newly proposed combined methods and strategies for
stormwater contamination detection, and (ii) further research on,
and development of, human waste specific markers (chemical and/
or microbiological) and their innovative sampling in stormwater
systems, including on-line monitoring and deployment of passive
sampling technology.
Acknowledgements
This work has been done with the financial support from the
Research Council Formas (2012-618), within the Stormwa-
ter&Sewers (Dag&N€ at) cluster. This support is gratefully
acknowledged.
References
APHA, 2012. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater,
twenty-second ed. American Public Health Association, Washington, DC.
Baby, R.E., Cabezas, M., Walsoe De Reca, E.N., 2000. Electronic nose: a useful tool for
monitoring environmental contamination. Sens. Actuators B 69 (3), 214e218.
Brzozowski, C., 2004. Illicit discharge detection and elimination. accessed through
electronic version of Stormwater journal, http://www.stormh20.com/SW/
Articles/Illicit_Discharge_Detection_and_ Elimination_15787.aspx. (accessed
02.02.15.).
Buerge, I.J., Poiger, T., Muller, M.D., Buser, H.-R., 2003. Caffeine, an anthropogenic
marker for wastewater contamination of surface waters. Environ. Sci. Technol.
37 (4), 691e700.
Butler, D., Davies, J.W., 2004. Urban Drainage. Taylor & Francis.
Butler, D., Friedler, E., Gatt, K., 1995. Characterizing the quantity and quality of
domestic wastewater inflow. Water Sci. Technol. 31 (7), 13e24.
Caldwell, J.M., Raley, M.E., Levine, J.F., 2007. Mitochondrial multiplex real-time PCR
as a source tracking method in fecal-contaminated effluents. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 41 (9), 3277e3283.
Call, D.R., Satterwhite, D.M., Soule, M., 2007. Using DNA suspension arrays to
identify library-independent markers for bacterial source tracking. Water Res.
41 (16), 3740e3746.
Canhoto, O.F., Magan, N., 2003. Potential for detection of microorganisms and heavy
metals in potable water using electronic nose technology. Biosens. Bioelectron.
249
18 (5e6), 751e754.
Campos, I., Alcaniz, M., Aguado, D., Barat, R., Ferrer, J., Gil, L., Marrakchi, M.,
Vivancos, J.-L., 2012. A voltammetric electronic tongue as tool for water quality
monitoring in wastewater treatment plants. Water Res. 46 (8), 2605e2614.
Daneshvar, A., Aboulfadl, K., Viglino, L., Broseus, R., Sauve, S., Madoux-Humery, A.-
S., Weyhenmeyer, G.A., Prevost, M., 2012. Evaluating pharmaceuticals and
caffeine as indicators of fecal contamination in drinking water sources of the
Greater Montreal region. Chemosphere 88 (1), 131e139.
Deffontis, S., Breton, A., Vialle, C., Montre jaud-Vignoles, M., Vignoles, C.,
Sablayrolles, C., 2013. Impact of dry weather discharges on annual pollution
from a separate storm sewer in Toulouse, France. Sci. Total Environ. 452e453,
394e403.
Dewettinck, T., Van Hege, K., Verstraete, W., 2001. The electronic nose as a rapid
sensor for volatile compounds in treated domestic wastewater. Water Res. 35
(10), 2475e2483.
Dirksen, J., Clemens, F.H.L.R., 2008. Probabilistic modeling of sewer deterioration
using inspection data. Water Sci. Technol. 57 (10), 1635e1641.
EC, 2000. Directive 2000/60/EC of the European parliament and of the council of
October 23 2000 establishing a framework for community action in the field of
water policy. Off. J. Eur. Communities. L327/1eL327/72.
Fenner, R.A., Stuetz, R.M., 1999. The application of electronic nose technology to
environmental monitoring of water and wastewater treatment activities. Water
Environ. Res. 71 (3), 282e289.
Fermanich, J., 2009. Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Program. University
of Wisconsin - Green Bay.
Ferreira, A.P., 2005. Caffeine as an environmental indicator for assessing urban
aquatic ecosystems. Cadernos de saúde pública/Ministe rio da Saúde, Fundaça ~o
Oswaldo Cruz. Esc. Nac. Saúde Pública 21 (6), 1884e1892.
Field, K.G., Samadpour, M., 2007. Fecal source tracking, the indicator paradigm, and
managing water quality. Water Res. 41 (16), 3517e3538.
Gasser, G., Rona, M., Voloshenko, A., Shelkov, R., Lev, O., Elhanany, S., Lange, F.T.,
Pankratov, I., 2011. Evaluation of micropollutant tracers. II. Carbamazepine
tracer for wastewater contamination from a nearby water recharge system and
from non-specific sources. Desalination 273 (2e3), 398e404.
Glassmeyer, S.T., Furlong, E.T., Kolpin, D.W., Cahill, J.D., Zaugg, S.D., Werner, S.L.,
Meyer, M.T., Kryak, D.D., 2005. Transport of chemical and microbial compounds
from known wastewater discharges: potential for use as indicators of human
fecal contamination. Environ. Sci. Technol. 39 (14), 5157e5169.
Gomez-Don ~ ate, M., Balleste
, E., Muniesa, M., Blanch, A.R., 2012. New molecular
quantitative PCR assay for detection of host-specific bifidobacteriaceae suitable
for microbial source tracking. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 78 (16), 5788.
Harwood, V.J., Staley, C., Badgley, B.D., Borges, K., Korajkic, A., 2014. Microbial source
tracking markers for detection of fecal contamination in environmental waters:
relationships between pathogens and human health outcomes. FEMS Microbiol.
Rev. 38 (1), 1e40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1574-6976.12031.
Hoes, O.A.C., Schilperoort, R.P.S., Luxemburg, W.M.J., Clemens, F.H.L.R., van de
Giesen, N.C., 2009. Locating illicit connections in storm water sewers using
fiber-optic distributed temperature sensing. Water Res. 43 (20), 5187e5197.
Hoppe, H., Messmann, S., Giga, A., Gruening, H., 2011. A real-time control strategy
for separation of highly polluted storm water based on UVeVis online mea-
surements e from theory to operation. Water Sci. Technol. 63 (10), 2287e2293.
Irvine, K., Rossi, M.C., Vermette, S., Bakert, J., Kleinfelder, K., 2011. Illicit discharge
detection and elimination: low cost options for source identification and
trackdown in stormwater systems. Urban Water J. 8 (6), 379e395.
Jagals, P., Grabow, W.O.K., 1996. An evaluation of sorbitol-fermenting bifidobacteria
as specific indicators of human fecal pollution of environmental water. Water
SA 22 (3), 235e238.
Juanico, M., Ronen, D., Shelef, G., 1990. The use of non-conservative parameters to
trace wastewater effluents in water bodies. Water Res. 24 (10), 1245e1250.
Kurissery, S., Kanavillil, N., Verenitch, S., Mazumder, A., 2012. Caffeine as an
anthropogenic marker of domestic waste: a study from Lake Simcoe watershed.
Ecol. Indic. 23, 501e508.
Langeveld, J.G., De Haan, C., Klootwijk, M., Schilperoort, R.P.S., 2012. Monitoring the
performance of a storm water separating manifold with distributed tempera-
ture sensing. Water Sci. Technol. 66 (1), 145e150.
Larsen, J.P., Garcia-Marquez, C., Nicholas, E.J., Herde, G.J.P., 2002. What lies beneath.
Water Environ. Technol. 14 (3), 37.
Lega, M., Napoli, R.M.A., 2010. Aerial infrared thermography in the surface waters
contamination monitoring. Desalin. Water Treat. 23 (1e3), 141e151.
Marsalek, J., 2003. Road salts in urban stormwater: an emerging issue in storm-
water management in cold climates. Water Sci. Technol. 48 (9), 61e70.
Moore, D.F., Harwood, V.J., Ferguson, D.M., Lukasik, J., Hannah, P., Getrich, M.,
Brownell, M., 2005. Evaluation of antibiotic resistance analysis and ribotyping
for identification of fecal pollution sources in an urban watershed. J. Appl.
Microbiol. 99 (3), 618e628.
Mushi, D., Byamukama, D., Kivaisi, A.K., Mach, R.L., Farnleitner, A.H., 2010. Sorbitol-
fermenting bifidobacteria are indicators of very recent human fecal pollution in
streams and groundwater habitats in urban tropical lowlands. J. Water Health 8
(3), 466e478.
NPDES, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, 2008. Illicit discharge
detection and elimination. Materials taken from EPA Office of Wastewater
Management webcast titled: Developing your IDDE Program http://www.epa.
gov/npdes/outreach_files/webcast/sept1206/files/27659/1/documents/slidepdf/
idde_pdf_download.pdf. (accessed 02.02.15.).
Payan, A., Ebdon, J., Taylor, H., Gantzer, C., Ottoson, J., Papageorgiou, G.T.,
250 O. Panasiuk et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 152 (2015) 241e250
Blanch, A.R., Muniesa, M., 2005. Method for isolation of Bacteroides bacterio-
phage host strains suitable for tracking sources of fecal pollution in water. Appl.
Environ. Microbiol. 71 (9), 5659e5662.
Peeler, K.A., Opsahl, S.P., Chanton, J.P., 2006. Tracking anthropogenic inputs using
caffeine, indicator bacteria, and nutrients in rural freshwater and urban marine
systems. Environ. Sci. Technol. 40 (24), 7616e7622.
Pitt, R., 2004. Illicit discharge detection and elimination, a guidance manual for
program development and technical assessments. Cent. Watershed Prot. MD.
Reynolds, S.D., Christian, D.P., Reynolds, K.G., 2008. Illicit discharge detection is
going to the dogs. In: World Environmental and Water Resources Congress
2008: Ahupua'a e Proceedings of the World Environmental and Water Re-
sources Congress, vol. 2008, p. 316.
Sankararamakrishnan, N., Guo, Q., 2005. Chemical tracers as indicator of human
fecal coliforms at storm water outfalls. Environ. Int. 31 (8), 1133e1140.
Sauve, S., Aboulfadl, K., Dorner, S., Payment, P., Deschamps, G., Prevost, M., 2012.
Fecal coliforms, caffeine and carbamazepine in stormwater collection systems
in a large urban area. Chemosphere 86 (2), 118e123.
Schilperoort, R.P.S., Gruber, G., Flamink, C.M.L., Clemens, F.H.L.R., van der
Graaf, J.H.J.M., 2006. Temperature and conductivity as control parameters for
pollution-based real-time control. Water Sci. Technol. 54 (11e12), 257e263.
Schilperoort, R.P.S., Clemens, F.H.L.R., 2009. Fibre-optic distributed temperature
sensing in combined sewer systems. Water Sci. Technol. 60 (5), 1127e1134.
Schmidt, S.D., Spencer, D.R., 1986. The magnitude of improper waste discharges in
an urban storm water system. J. Water Pollut. Control Fed. 58 (7), 744e748.
Scott, T.M., Rose, J.B., Jenkins, T.M., Farrah, S.R., Lukasik, J., 2002. Microbial source
tracking: current methodology and future directions. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.
68 (12), 5796e5803.
Seiler, R.L., Zaugg, S.D., Thomas, J.M., Howcroft, D.L., 1999. Caffeine and pharma-
ceuticals as indicators of waste water contamination in wells. Ground Water 37
(3), 405e410.
Shanks, O.C., Santo Domingo, J.W., Lu, J., Kelty, C.A., Graham, J.E., 2007. Identification
of bacterial DNA markers for the detection of human fecal pollution in water.
Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 73 (8), 2416e2422.
Siegener, R., Chen, R.F., 2002. Caffeine in Boston harbor seawater. Mar. Pollut. Bull.
44 (5), 383e387.
Selvakumar, A., Borst, M., 2006. Variation of microorganism concentration in urban
stormwater runoff with land use and seasons. J. Water Health 4 (1), 109e124.
SMI, (Swedish Institute for Communicable Disease Control), 2011. Cryptosporidium
€
i Ostersund. Smittskyddsinstitutets arbete med det dricksvattenburna utbrottet
€
i Ostersund 2010e2011. Artikelnummer: 2011-15-4, ISBN: 978-91-86723-12-5
(in Swedish).
Standley, L.J., Kaplan, L.A., Smith, D., 2000. Molecular tracers of organic matter
sources to surface water resources. Environ. Sci. Technol. 34 (15), 3124e3130.
Stuer-Lauridsen, F., 2005. Review of passive accumulation devices for monitoring
organic micropollutants in the aquatic environment. Environ. Pollut. 136 (3),
503e524.
Tourlousse, D.M., Ahmad, F., Stedtfeld, R.D., Seyrig, G., Duran, M., Alm, E.W.,
Hashsham, S.A., 2008. Detection and occurrence of indicator organisms and
pathogens. Water Environ. Res. 80 (10), 898e928.
Tuomari, D., Thompson, S., 2003. “Sherlocks of storm water” effective investigation
techniques for illicit connection and discharge detection. In: Proc. Int. Conf.on
Urban Storm Water, Chicago, IL, USA, February 17e20, 2003. http://water.epa.
gov/polwaste/nps/stormwater/upload/2003_03_26_NPS_natlstormwater03_
40Tuomari.pdf (accessed 02.02.15.).
Tyagi, P., Edwards, D.R., Coyne, M.S., 2009. Distinguishing between human and
animal sources of fecal pollution in waters: a review. Int. J. Water 5 (1), 15e34.
Vrana, B., Mills, G.A., Allan, I.J., Dominiak, E., Svensson, K., Knutson, J., Morrison, G.,
Greenwood, R., 2005. Passive sampling techniques for monitoring pollutants in
water. Trends Anal. Chem. 24 (10), 845e868.
Wilson, A.D., 2012. Review of electronic-nose technologies and algorithms to detect
hazardous chemicals in the environment. Procedia Technol. 1, 453e463.