Next Article in Journal
Inhibition of Staphylococcus pseudintermedius Efflux Pumps by Using Staphylococcus aureus NorA Efflux Pump Inhibitors
Next Article in Special Issue
Prevalence and Antimicrobial Resistance Profile of Diarrheagenic Escherichia coli from Fomites in Rural Households in South Africa
Previous Article in Journal
‘I Believe What I’m Saying More Than the Test’: The Complicated Place of Rapid, Point-of-Care Tests in Veterinary Diagnostic Practice
Previous Article in Special Issue
Antimicrobial Resistance and β-Lactamase Production in Clinically Significant Gram-Negative Bacteria Isolated from Hospital and Municipal Wastewater
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

The African Wastewater Resistome: Identifying Knowledge Gaps to Inform Future Research Directions

by
Akebe Luther King Abia
1,2,*,
Themba Baloyi
1,
Afsatou N. Traore
1 and
Natasha Potgieter
1,*
1
One Health Research Group, Biochemistry & Microbiology Department, University of Venda, Private Bag X5050, Thohoyandou 0950, South Africa
2
Environmental Research Foundation, Westville 3630, South Africa
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Antibiotics 2023, 12(5), 805; https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics12050805
Submission received: 16 March 2023 / Revised: 20 April 2023 / Accepted: 21 April 2023 / Published: 24 April 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Antimicrobial Resistance and Environmental Health)

Abstract

:
Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a growing global public health threat. Furthermore, wastewater is increasingly recognized as a significant environmental reservoir for AMR. Wastewater is a complex mixture of organic and inorganic compounds, including antibiotics and other antimicrobial agents, discharged from hospitals, pharmaceutical industries, and households. Therefore, wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) are critical components of urban infrastructure that play a vital role in protecting public health and the environment. However, they can also be a source of AMR. WWTPs serve as a point of convergence for antibiotics and resistant bacteria from various sources, creating an environment that favours the selection and spread of AMR. The effluent from WWTPs can also contaminate surface freshwater and groundwater resources, which can subsequently spread resistant bacteria to the wider environment. In Africa, the prevalence of AMR in wastewater is of particular concern due to the inadequate sanitation and wastewater treatment facilities, coupled with the overuse and misuse of antibiotics in healthcare and agriculture. Therefore, the present review evaluated studies that reported on wastewater in Africa between 2012 and 2022 to identify knowledge gaps and propose future perspectives, informing the use of wastewater-based epidemiology as a proxy for determining the resistome circulating within the continent. The study found that although wastewater resistome studies have increased over time in Africa, this is not the case in every country, with most studies conducted in South Africa. Furthermore, the study identified, among others, methodology and reporting gaps, driven by a lack of skills. Finally, the review suggests solutions including standardisation of protocols in wastewater resistome works and an urgent need to build genomic skills within the continent to handle the big data generated from these studies.

1. Introduction

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) has been recognised by countries and organisations worldwide as one of the biggest threats to public health in recent times [1,2,3]. It is estimated that without appropriate preventive or remedial measures, the world may experience approximately 10 million losses of lives and over USD 100 trillion annually in the global economy by 2050 [4].
Although micro-organisms possess intrinsic resistance to naturally occurring stressors, the indiscriminate use of pharmaceuticals has been recognised as the most significant contributor to acquired resistance in these organisms, thus escalating the threat to human health [5,6]. For example, the massive and increasing demand for animal protein has engendered an unparalleled use of antibiotics in food animal production, which in 2017 was estimated at 93,309 tons per year globally, with an expected 11.5% increase by 2030 [7]. Furthermore, in humans, misdiagnosis of infections results in the inappropriate prescription of many antibiotics [8]. Therefore, to curb this ill, the World Health Organization (WHO) has identified critical factors driving AMR, including the abusive use of these pharmaceuticals, nonavailability of clean water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) for human and animal use, inadequate measures to control and prevent infections and diseases in health and animal production settings, inaccessibility to good, and cost-effective medications, vaccines and test procedures, unawareness and lack of knowledge regarding the problem, and nonenforcement of legislation [9].
However, a considerable proportion of the antibiotics consumed by humans and animals are mostly excreted in partially or completely unmetabolised forms, usually containing active ingredients [10,11]. This results in the inevitable discharge of these pharmaceutically active compounds into the environment, especially water bodies, with the major consequence being the potential selection for the survival of resistant micro-organisms. With this, wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) have been recognised as being among the hotspots for the discharge of antibiotics, their residues and antibiotic-resistant bacteria into the environment [12,13,14,15,16,17].
Despite the perceived role of these WWTPs on the spread of AMR, studies evaluating their impact are limited, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) such as South Africa, where such facilities are usually nonfunctional or function sub-optimally. Furthermore, where such studies are available, the link between environmental and clinical isolates is not apparent, probably because of the basic analyses performed that usually have low discriminating powers to establish such associations. Moreover, the lack of proper reporting of findings influences the acquisition of such data in the public domain. Thus, the present review evaluated the existing literature on AMR in Africa between 2012 and 2022, emphasising South Africa as a case study, to identify gaps that need to be filled to inform future preventive and mitigation measures towards AMR.

2. Overview of African Studies between 2012 and 2022

In Africa, the prevalence of AMR in wastewater is of particular concern due to the inadequate sanitation and wastewater treatment facilities, coupled with the overuse and misuse of antibiotics in healthcare and agriculture. African countries, especially in the sub-Saharan region, have the highest disease burdens in the world, with infectious diseases accounting for over 227 million healthy life years and over USD 800 billion yearly productivity loss globally [18]. The ripple effect of this health situation has been identified as the primary factor driving the excessive rate of antimicrobial prescriptions within the continent [19]. For example, consumption of antibiotics in the WHO Watch list increased by 165% in LMIC (including African countries) compared to approximately 28% in their high-income counterparts between 2000 and 2015 [19].
This high antibiotic use implies that wastewater in these countries would be rich in antibiotic residues, antibiotic-resistant bacteria (ARB) and their associated antibiotic-resistance genes (ARGs). For example, a study in Ghana investigated resistance genes, mobile genetic elements (MGEs), from drainage and canalizations before and after three hospitals and an urban waste treatment plant [20]. The main idea was to establish the relationship between the hospital and the wastewater resistome. The authors used a combination of culture-dependent and independent methods, including high-throughput whole-genome sequencing on two sequencing platforms, Nanopore (long reads) and Illumina (short reads). The authors recorded higher resistance rates to carbapenems in the canalization after the hospitals, indicating that the hospital wastewater contributed significantly to the dissemination of resistant bacteria in the environment. Furthermore, the study identified several carbapenemase/β-lactamase genes, including novel variants, such as blaDIM-1, blaVIM-71, blaCARB-53, and blaCMY-172, with some of these genes associated with MGEs, meaning that these could easily be transferred within and between bacterial communities.
In Nigeria, Akpan et al. [21] isolated Gram-negative bacteria from an abattoir’s wastewater and tested them for antibiotic resistance against five antibiotics, to determine the impact of the abattoir on the environmental resistome. The organisms isolated included Salmonella spp., E. coli, Klebsiella spp., Shigella spp., Pseudomonas spp. and Enterobacter spp. The authors observed that a significant proportion of the isolates (~67%) were resistant to all antibiotics tested, with a 77% multidrug resistance recorded across the samples. However, no extended-spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL)-producing traits were observed in any of the isolates. This study demonstrated that abattoirs contributed considerably to AMR in the aquatic environment.
Tesfaye et al. [22] investigated antimicrobial resistance in Enterobacteriaceae in wastewater collected from health settings, an abattoir, and a WWTP, including downstream of a river in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. The authors obtained 54 isolates, including E. coli, Salmonella spp., Klebsiella pneumoniae, Enterobacter aerogenes, Citrobacter spp., Klebsiella oxytoca and Enterobacter cloacae. Antibiotic susceptibility testing revealed that all the isolates were multidrug resistant, while 2 isolates were resistant to all the 12 antibiotics tested. ESBL production was also recorded in 27.3% of the resistant isolates. Furthermore, the hospital wastewater had a higher percentage of resistance than all the other sites, again identifying hospital wastewater as a hotspot for AMR dissemination.
A major shortcoming in all the studies reviewed is that most of them focused on a one-off sampling, usually resulting in a very limited number of isolates or samples. Such small sample sizes would make it challenging to draw strong conclusions and would require further investigations. Furthermore, many studies used either culture or sequencing and only a few used both methods. Using only the culture methods could underestimate the microbial load due to viable but non-culturable isolates, hence reducing the actual resistome reported. On the other hand, using only genomic approaches could overestimate the risk associated with AMR in wastewater. Nevertheless, the presence of any resistance genes and MGEs would signify the possible transmission to other related or even unrelated species. A summary of some studies on wastewater resistome in Africa is provided in Table 1.
Despite the recognised role of WWTPs in AMR, studies on AMR in wastewater are not evenly distributed within the continent, with most of the studies reported in South Africa (Figure 1).
However, it is evident that wastewater as a reservoir and source of AMR is gaining attention in Africa, as seen by the increasing trend of studies focusing on wastewater (Figure 2).

3. Case Study: South Africa

3.1. The South African Wastewater Resistome

A 2015 survey assessed antimicrobial use in inpatients in various hospitals globally and reported that over 50% of African patients received antibiotics [19]. However, a later study revealed a 55% inappropriate use of antimicrobials in some South African primary healthcare facilities [43]. Furthermore, South Africa is among the highest consumers of antimicrobials used in food animals. For example, the country consumed over 870 tons of antimicrobials in food-producing animals, and this quantity is estimated to increase to over 1100 tons by 2030, driven by increased demand for animal protein [19]. These use patterns could be responsible for the AMR rates observed within the country and could ultimately result in a significant discharge of chemically active pharmaceutical residues, ARB and ARGs into the environment through poorly treated or untreated WWTP effluents.
The distribution of WWTPs in South Africa is, Eastern Cape: 123, Free State: 96, Gauteng: 60, KwaZulu-Natal: 147, Limpopo: 64, Mpumalanga: 76, Northern Cape: 78, North-West: 48, and Western Cape: 158 [44]. According to the South African Green Drop evaluation, a WWTP should obtain an overall ≥ 90% Green Drop score to be considered in an excellent functional state [44]. However, according to the 2022 report, the country’s WWTPs have experienced a massive decrease in functional capacity, with the number of WWTPs failing to meet these criteria, significantly increasing from those reported in the preceding report. Thus, monitoring WWTPs would provide an excellent way of determining the AMR burden within the country, and this has attracted interest from the South African scientific community in recent years.

3.2. Distribution of Studies by Province

Several studies have assessed AMR in South African wastewaters. However, a review of the literature between 2012 and 2022 revealed an uneven distribution of the studies within the country’s nine regions, with KwaZulu-Natal and the Eastern Cape accounting for the bulk of the studies identified within the study period (Figure 3).
Although 36 studies were identified on AMR in wastewater within the study period, not all of them focused on WWTPs (Figure 4). While most of the studies were on WWTPs, other sources of wastewater evaluated included hospital wastewater (HWW), abattoirs and domestic wastewater (DWW).

3.3. Micro-organisms Targeted

Microbial species in wastewater are diverse, and attempting to identify them all would not be practical, timewise, resource-wise or technically. Thus, using indicator organisms has been the gold standard for determining the microbial quality of microbially contaminated waters [45,46,47,48,49]. Apart from being a good faecal indicator, Escherichia coli has been identified as a good indicator of AMR in the environment, including wastewater [50]. Thus, in the current report, E. coli was the most identified organism in all the studies evaluated (Figure 5). However, the culture methods and media used for the identification of E. coli and other organisms differed considerably between studies (Table 2).

3.4. AMR Determination Methods

The methods used to determine AMR in wastewater samples depend on the aim of the study. Determination of phenotypic resistance is performed using the disk diffusion, agar dilution or broth dilution method [80]. Although disk diffusion is commonly used, automated systems using mainly the broth dilution method have been developed. An example is the VITEK system [81,82].
On the other hand, genotypic resistance is achieved through polymerase chain reaction (PCR) using specific primers to target specific genes [83]. However, this method could be time-consuming and labour-intensive when dealing with many organisms and may require further sequencing of amplified genes to further differentiate them, like with the tet genes conferring resistance to tetracycline [60]. Furthermore, recent advances in molecular techniques have allowed the detection of resistance genes in whole populations directly from environmental samples without the need for culture [84].
Finally, whole-genome sequencing (WGS) has been used in cases where high-resolution characterisation of specific isolates is required, as this approach can lead to the identification of novel genes and mutations related to AMR [85].
In the studies reviewed in the current report, the most used method was disk diffusion as most studies focused on phenotypic resistance. Furthermore, the disk diffusion is cost-effective, and flexible, allowing visual growth observation, correct inoculum, mixed (contaminated) cultures and other irregularities [86]. Although the broth dilution method has the added advantage of providing the minimum bactericidal concentration (MBC), the minimum concentration of an antimicrobial that eliminates 99.9% of bacteria [87], this method is more valuable in clinical settings where treatment is required. This could influence its reduced use in the studies evaluated here, as they focused on environmental samples. Where genotypic resistance was investigated, this was mostly achieved through PCR (conventional and real-time). Only a few studies used metagenomics or WGS. There is no doubt that WGS provides an unprecedented level of detail regarding AMR, something that cannot be achieved with culture and other molecular techniques [88]. However, the cost of sequencing and the need for highly skilled bioinformaticians are major impediments to its routine use within the African continent. The VITEK automated system was only used for isolate identification and not for the determination of AMR. Although this system is highly automated and time-efficient, allowing the simultaneous analysis of hundreds of samples [87], the cost of instrumentation could be challenging for most researchers in Africa due to a lack of sufficient research funds. A summary of South African studies that focused specifically on WWTPs between 2012 and 2022 is provided in Table 3.

3.5. Water Research Funding

One of the driving factors in research is the availability of funds. For example, the Water Research Commission (WRC) funds most water-related projects in South Africa. This section identifies past WRC projects, and their main aims, to identify similar studies that have been reported on AMR in WWTPs (Table 4). Based on their database, of all these studies, only one focused on antimicrobial resistance in WWTPs (https://search.wrc.org.za/#!/ (accessed on 3 February 2023)). This archive revealed that only a single project was specifically funded relating to the wastewater resistome.

4. Identifying Knowledge Gaps

4.1. Spatial (Geographical) Gaps

Studies on the WWTP resistome in South Africa have been dominated by two provinces—KwaZulu-Natal and Eastern Cape. Very few studies have been conducted in provinces such as the North-West and Gauteng, while others such as Mpumalanga and Limpopo did not perform such studies within the reviewed period. This provides an incomplete picture of the country’s WWTP resistome. This gap could be due to the non-functioning of most WWTPs in these locations, especially in rural settings.

4.2. Methodological Gaps and Associated Challenges

The sampling frequency is not standardised; lower samples may exclude seasonal variation. Infectious diseases requiring antimicrobial treatment, such as diarrhoea usually follow a seasonal pattern [90]. This means that antibiotic consumption would vary based on these seasons. This could therefore affect the type and frequency of resistance observed in wastewater. One-off samplings recorded by Gumede et al. [60] would paint an incomplete picture of the wastewater resistome.
On the other hand, Molale-Tom and Bezuidenhout [70] sampled in a single month (May), while Mbanga et al. [68] sampled for seven months, cutting across different seasons, although both studies focused on Enterococcus spp. Furthermore, WWTPs experience periods of peak and low flow [91]. The sampling time could therefore affect the abundance and frequency of AMR, which would be missed with limited sampling. However, none of the studies reviewed indicated the sampling times.
The number and the type of antibiotics tested vary per study, even when the same organisms were tested. For example, Gumede et al. [60], Adegoke et al. [61], Pillay and Olaniran [62], Adefisoye and Okoh [64], and Nzima et al. [65] tested 23, 8, 13, 17 and 9 antibiotics, respectively, although they were all working on E. coli. Furthermore, Adegoke et al. [61] tested for colistin which was not tested by the other studies, while Pillay and Olaniran [62] included norfloxacin and fosfomycin in their panel.
These two factors would pose a significant challenge when comparing different studies.
The studies reviewed indicated that the most used detection method was disk diffusion and, in some cases, combined with PCR. However, this creates a knowledge gap regarding the various genes implicated in the observed phenotypic resistance. Although it has been shown that discrepancies exist between phenotypic and genotypic resistance, some organisms may be phenotypically susceptible to the tested antibiotics yet possess genes that could be expressed under appropriate environmental stress, as observed in WWTP settings.
Moreover, culture-based approaches would introduce selection bias, as only a subset of isolates is usually selected for downstream analysis. This would also be the case with WGS, where a selected number of isolates would be subjected to sequencing. On the other hand, metagenomic approaches would identify genes in a total population, regardless of the micro-organisms. Despite the advantages of genomic methods for AMR monitoring, these methods were only used in very few studies during the review period.
This methodological gap is probably fuelled by two main factors: the cost of performing advanced genomic studies and the lack of technical skills, including bioinformatic skills for analysing genomic data.

4.3. Micro-organisms Gap

Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria differ in the structure of their outer membranes, a characteristic that affects their response to antibiotics. Thus, because of an extra outer layer, Gram-negative bacteria have been reported to be more antibiotic-resistant than their Gram-positive counterparts [92,93]. However, most of the evaluated studies focused on E. coli (Gram-negative), while a few assessed Enterococcus spp. (Gram-positive).
Despite the greater medical importance of Gram-negatives, Gram-positive bacteria could serve as important reservoirs of ARGs within WWTPs. This reliance on E. coli alone is also due to the simplicity of its isolation and characterisation, which make it a suitable organism for monitoring AMR. However, determining the WWTP resistome using E. coli alone could lead to gross underestimation of AMR in these milieus.

4.4. Reporting Gap

Research findings should be made available for consumption by the general public and relevant stakeholders as this would foster the implementation of such findings for the benefit of humanity and its environment [94,95]. However, while the studies reviewed here were journal articles published in scholarly outlets, such information does not usually get to the grassroots people, who are more impacted by the problems investigated. Furthermore, even with the scientific publications, the analysis gaps identified earlier significantly affect the overall information available on AMR in WWTPs due to the non-standard nature of the studies. For example, repositories containing the various resistances identified in the studies are unavailable within the country.

5. Proposed Future Perspective

It is evident that wastewater-based monitoring of AMR is gaining significant ground globally, including in South Africa. However, this could still be challenging in many African countries as most LMICs lack structured sewer systems. However, in places such as South Africa where such facilities are available:
(i).
There is a need to standardise protocols for assessing the WWTP resistome. This should consider the sampling regime, the sampling frequency, the organisms targeted, which antibiotics need to be tested and which methods should be used.
(ii).
There is a need to build capacity in sequencing technologies and bioinformatics, given the recent drift of the science to big data analysis.
(iii).
Funding must be made available to researchers as sequencing technologies are not yet widespread in the country, and the cost of using these facilities is still considerably high.
(iv).
Reporting of works on AMR in WWTPs needs to be improved, and there is a need to create a repository that would serve as a referral point for future studies.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, N.P., A.L.K.A. and A.N.T.; methodology, A.L.K.A. and T.B.; validation, N.P. and A.N.T.; formal analysis, A.L.K.A.; investigation, A.L.K.A. and T.B.; data curation, N.P., A.N.T. and T.B.; writing—original draft preparation, A.L.K.A.; writing—review and editing, A.L.K.A.; project administration, N.P.; funding acquisition, N.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the South African Water Research Commission, grant number C2022/2023-00991. The APC was funded by the University of Venda.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. UN United Nations Meeting on Antimicrobial Resistance. Bull. World Health Organ. 2016, 94, 638–639. [CrossRef]
  2. World Health Organization United Nations High-Level Meeting on Antimicrobial Resistance. Available online: https://apps.who.int/mediacentre/events/2016/antimicrobial-resistance/en/index.html (accessed on 14 April 2023).
  3. WHO. Antimicrobial Resistance and the United Nations Sustainable Development Cooperation Framework. Guidance for United Nations Country Teams; WHO Press: Geneva, Switzerlan, 2021; pp. 1–24.
  4. Stanton, I.C.; Bethel, A.; Frances, A.; Leonard, C.; Gaze, W.H.; Garside, R. Existing Evidence on Antibiotic Resistance Exposure and Transmission to Humans from the Environment: A Systematic Map. Environ. Evid. 2022, 11, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Essack, S.Y.; Sartorius, B. Global Antibiotic Resistance: Of Contagion, Confounders, and the COM-B Model. Lancet Planet. Health 2018, 2, e376–e377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. De Sosa, J.A.; Byarugaba, D.K.; Amabile-Cuevas, C.F.; Hsueh, P.R.; Kariuki, S.; Okeke, I.N. Antimicrobial Resistance in Developing Countries; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2010; ISBN 9780387893709. [Google Scholar]
  7. Tiseo, K.; Huber, L.; Gilbert, M.; Robinson, T.P.; Van Boeckel, T.P. Global Trends in Antimicrobial Use in Food Animals from 2017 to 2030. Antibiotics 2020, 9, 918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Kubone, P.Z.; Mlisana, K.P.; Govinden, U.; Abia, A.L.K.; Essack, S.Y. Antibiotic Susceptibility and Molecular Characterization of Uropathogenic Escherichia coli Associated with Community-Acquired Urinary Tract Infections in Urban and Rural Settings in South Africa. Trop. Med. Infect. Dis. 2020, 5, 176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. WHO Global Action Plan on Antimicrobial Resistance; WHO Document Production Services; WHO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2015.
  10. Chereau, F.; Opatowski, L.; Tourdjman, M.; Vong, S. Risk Assessment for Antibiotic Resistance in South East Asia. BMJ 2017, 358, j3393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. O’Neill, J. The Review on Antimicrobial Resistance Chaired by Jim O’Neill. 2015. Available online: https://amr-review.org/sites/default/files/Report-52.15.pdf (accessed on 3 February 2023).
  12. Proia, L.; Anzil, A.; Borrego, C.; Farrè, M.; Llorca, M.; Sanchis, J.; Bogaerts, P.; Balcázar, J.L.; Servais, P. Occurrence and Persistence of Carbapenemases Genes in Hospital and Wastewater Treatment Plants and Propagation in the Receiving River. J. Hazard. Mater. 2018, 358, 33–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Moslah, B.; Hapeshi, E.; Jrad, A.; Fatta-Kassinos, D.; Hedhili, A. Pharmaceuticals and Illicit Drugs in Wastewater Samples in North-Eastern Tunisia. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2018, 25, 18226–18241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Sinthuchai, D.; Boontanon, S.K.; Boontanon, N.; Polprasert, C. Evaluation of Removal Efficiency of Human Antibiotics in Wastewater Treatment Plants in Bangkok, Thailand. Water Sci. Technol. 2016, 73, 182–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Li, X.; Shi, H.; Li, K.; Zhang, L.; Gan, Y. Occurrence and Fate of Antibiotics in Advanced Wastewater Treatment Facilities and Receiving Rivers in Beijing, China. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng. 2014, 8, 888–894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Zhang, Y.; Marrs, C.F.; Simon, C.; Xi, C. Wastewater Treatment Contributes to Selective Increase of Antibiotic Resistance among Acinetobacter spp. Sci. Total Environ. 2009, 407, 3702–3706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Omuferen, L.O.; Maseko, B.; Olowoyo, J.O. Occurrence of Antibiotics in Wastewater from Hospital and Convectional Wastewater Treatment Plants and Their Impact on the Effluent Receiving Rivers: Current Knowledge between 2010 and 2019. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2022, 194, 306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Nkengasong, J.N.; Tessema, S.K. Africa Needs a New Public Health Order to Tackle Infectious Disease Threats. Cell 2020, 183, 296–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Sriram, A.; Kalanxhi, E.; Kapoor, G.; Craig, J.; Ruchita Balasubramanian, S.B.; Criscuolo, N.; Hamilton, A.; Klein, E.; Tseng, K.; Van Boeckel, T.; et al. The State of the World’s Antibiotics in 2021: A Global Analysis of Antimicrobial Resistance and Its Drivers; 2021. Available online: https://onehealthtrust.org/publications/reports/the-state-of-the-worlds-antibiotic-in-2021/ (accessed on 3 February 2023).
  20. Delgado-Blas, J.F.; Valenzuela Agüi, C.; Marin Rodriguez, E.; Serna, C.; Montero, N.; Saba, C.K.S.; Gonzalez-Zorn, B. Dissemination Routes of Carbapenem and Pan-Aminoglycoside Resistance Mechanisms in Hospital and Urban Wastewater Canalizations of Ghana. mSystems 2022, 7, e01019–e01021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Akpan, S.N.; Odeniyi, O.A.; Adebowale, O.O.; Alarape, S.A.; Adeyemo, O.K. Antibiotic Resistance Profile of Gram-Negative Bacteria Isolated from Lafenwa Abattoir Effluent and Its Receiving Water (Ogun River) in Abeokuta, Ogun State, Nigeria. Onderstepoort J. Vet. Res. 2020, 87, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Tesfaye, H.; Alemayehu, H.; Desta, A.F.; Eguale, T. Antimicrobial Susceptibility Profile of Selected Enterobacteriaceae in Wastewater Samples from Health Facilities, Abattoir, Downstream Rivers and a WWTP in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Antimicrob. Resist. Infect. Control 2019, 8, 134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Marano, R.B.M.; Fernandes, T.; Manaia, C.M.; Nunes, O.; Morrison, D.; Berendonk, T.U.; Kreuzinger, N.; Telson, T.; Corno, G.; Fatta-Kassinos, D.; et al. A Global Multinational Survey of Cefotaxime-Resistant Coliforms in Urban Wastewater Treatment Plants. Environ. Int. 2020, 144, 106035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Alouache, S.; Estepa, V.; Messai, Y.; Ruiz, E.; Torres, C.; Bakour, R. Characterization of ESBLs and Associated Quinolone Resistance in Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae Isolates from an Urban Wastewater Treatment Plant in Algeria. Microb. Drug Resist. 2014, 20, 30–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Onalenna, O.; Rahube, T.O. Assessing Bacterial Diversity and Antibiotic Resistance Dynamics in Wastewater Effluent-Irrigated Soil and Vegetables in a Microcosm Setting. Heliyon 2022, 8, e09089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Tapela, K.; Rahube, T. Isolation and Antibiotic Resistance Profiles of Bacteria from Influent, Effluent and Downstream: A Study in Botswana. Afr. J. Microbiol. Res. 2019, 13, 279–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Soré, S.; Sawadogo, Y.; Bonkoungou, J.I.; Kaboré, S.P.; Béogo, S.; Sawadogo, C.; Bationo, B.G.; Ky, H.; Madingar, P.D.-M.; Ouédraogo, A.S.; et al. Detection, Identification and Characterization of Extended-Spectrum Beta-Lactamases Producing Enterobacteriaceae in Wastewater and Salads Marketed in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso. Int. J. Biol. Chem. Sci. 2020, 14, 2746–2757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Abasse, O.; Boukaré, K.; Sampo, E.; Bouda, R.; CISSE, H.; Stéphane, K.; Odetokun, I.; Sawadogo, A.; Henri Nestor, B.; Savadogo, A. Spread and Antibiotic Resistance Profile of Pathogens Isolated from Human and Hospital Wastewater in Ouagadougou. Microbes Infect. Dis. 2022, 3, 318–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Bougnom, B.P.; McNally, A.; Etoa, F.X.; Piddock, L.J. Antibiotic Resistance Genes Are Abundant and Diverse in Raw Sewage Used for Urban Agriculture in Africa and Associated with Urban Population Density. Environ. Pollut. 2019, 251, 146–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Mekengo, B.M.; Hussein, S.; Ali, M.M. Distribution and Antimicrobial Resistance Profile of Bacteria Recovered from Sewage System of Health Institutions Found in Hawassa, Sidama Regional State, Ethiopia: A Descriptive Study. SAGE Open Med. 2021, 9, 205031212110390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Asfaw, T.; Negash, L.; Kahsay, A.; Weldu, Y. Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria from Treated and Untreated Hospital Wastewater at Ayder Referral Hospital, Mekelle, North Ethiopia. Adv. Microbiol. 2017, 7, 871–886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Adomako, L.A.B.; Yirenya-Tawiah, D.; Nukpezah, D.; Abrahamya, A.; Labi, A.K.; Grigoryan, R.; Ahmed, H.; Owusu-Danquah, J.; Annang, T.Y.; Banu, R.A.; et al. Reduced Bacterial Counts from a Sewage Treatment Plant but Increased Counts and Antibiotic Resistance in the Recipient Stream in Accra, Ghana—A Cross-Sectional Study. Trop. Med. Infect. Dis. 2021, 6, 79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Wawire, S.A.; Reva, O.N.; O’Brien, T.J.; Figueroa, W.; Dinda, V.; Shivoga, W.A.; Welch, M. Virulence and Antimicrobial Resistance Genes Are Enriched in the Plasmidome of Clinical Escherichia coli Isolates Compared with Wastewater Isolates from Western Kenya. Infect. Genet. Evol. 2021, 91, 104784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Mutuku, C. Antibiotic Resistance Profiles among Enteric Bacteria Isolated from Wastewater in Septic Tanks 2017. Am. Sci. Res. J. Eng. Technol. Sci. 2017, 27, 99–107. [Google Scholar]
  35. Song’oro, E.; Nyerere, A.; Magoma, G.; Gunturu, R. Occurrence of Highly Resistant Microorganisms in Ruai Wastewater Treatment Plant and Dandora Dumpsite in Nairobi County, Kenya. Adv. Microbiol. 2019, 9, 479–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Alpha, A.D.; Delphine, B.; Fatou, T.L.; Mbaye, M.; Mohamed, M.S.; Moussa, D.; Yacine, S.; Monique, K.; Rianatou, A.; Yaya, T.; et al. Prevalence of Pathogenic and Antibiotics Resistant Escherichia coli from Effluents of a Slaughterhouse and a Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plant in Dakar. African J. Microbiol. Res. 2017, 11, 1035–1042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Mbanga, J.; Amoako, D.G.; Abia, A.L.K.; Allam, M.; Ismail, A.; Essack, S.Y. Genomic Analysis of Enterococcus spp. Isolated from a Wastewater Treatment Plant and Its Associated Waters in Umgungundlovu District, South Africa. Front. Microbiol. 2021, 12, 648454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Mhongole, O.J.; Mdegela, R.H.; Kusiluka, L.J.M.; Forslund, A.; Dalsgaard, A. Characterization of Salmonella spp. from Wastewater Used for Food Production in Morogoro, Tanzania. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2017, 33, 42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Rafraf, I.D.; Lekunberri, I.; Sànchez-Melsió, A.; Aouni, M.; Borrego, C.M.; Balcázar, J.L. Abundance of Antibiotic Resistance Genes in Five Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants in the Monastir Governorate, Tunisia. Environ. Pollut. 2016, 219, 353–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Afema, J.A.; Byarugaba, D.K.; Shah, D.H.; Atukwase, E.; Nambi, M.; Sischo, W.M. Potential Sources and Transmission of Salmonella and Antimicrobial Resistance in Kampala, Uganda. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0152130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Mubbunu, L.; Siyumbi, S.; Katongo, C.; Mwambungu, A. Waste Water as Reservoir of Antibiotic Resistant Micro-Organisms: A Case of Luanshya Waste Water Ponds. Int. J. Res. Med. Health Sci. 2014, 4, 9. [Google Scholar]
  42. Gufe, C.; Ndlovu, M.N.; Sibanda, Z.; Makuvara, Z.; Marumure, J. Prevalence and Antimicrobial Profile of Potentially Pathogenic Bacteria Isolated from Abattoir Effluents in Bulawayo, Zimbabwe. Sci. African 2021, 14, e01059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Gasson, J.; Blockman, M.; Willems, B. Antibiotic Prescribing Practice and Adherence to Guidelines in Primary Care in the Cape Town Metro District, South Africa. S. Afr. Med. J. 2018, 108, 304–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. DWS—South African Department of Water and Sanitation. Green Drop National Report 2022; Department of Water Affairs: Pretoria, South Africa, 2022.
  45. Devane, M.L.; Moriarty, E.; Weaver, L.; Cookson, A.; Gilpin, B. Fecal Indicator Bacteria from Environmental Sources; Strategies for Identification to Improve Water Quality Monitoring. Water Res. 2020, 185, 116204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Liang, L.; Goh, S.G.; Vergara, G.G.R.V.; Fang, H.M.; Rezaeinejad, S.; Chang, S.Y.; Bayen, S.; Lee, W.A.; Sobsey, M.D.; Rose, J.B.; et al. Alternative Fecal Indicators and Their Empirical Relationships with Enteric Viruses, Salmonella enterica, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa in Surface Waters of a Tropical Urban Catchment. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2015, 81, 850–860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Field, K.G.; Samadpour, M. Fecal Source Tracking, the Indicator Paradigm, and Managing Water Quality. Water Res. 2007, 41, 3517–3538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Saxena, G.; Bharagava, R.N.; Kaithwas, G.; Raj, A. Microbial Indicators, Pathogens and Methods for Their Monitoring in Water Environment. J. Water Health 2015, 13, 319–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Harwood, V.; Shanks, O.; Koraijkic, A.; Verbyla, M.; Ahmed, W.; Iriate, M. General and Host- Associated Bacterial Indicators of Faecal Pollution. 2017. Available online: https://www.waterpathogens.org/book/bacterial-indicators (accessed on 3 February 2023).
  50. Anjum, M.F.; Schmitt, H.; Börjesson, S.; Berendonk, T.U.; Donner, E.; Stehling, E.G.; Boerlin, P.; Topp, E.; Jardine, C.; Li, X.; et al. The Potential of Using E. coli as an Indicator for the Surveillance of Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR) in the Environment. Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 2021, 64, 152–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Coetzee, I.; Bezuidenhout, C.C.; Bezuidenhout, J.J. Triclosan Resistant Bacteria in Sewage Effluent and Cross-Resistance to Antibiotics. Water Sci. Technol. 2017, 76, 1500–1509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Eze, E.C.; El Zowalaty, M.E.; Pillay, M. Antibiotic Resistance and Biofilm Formation of Acinetobacter baumannii Isolated from High-Risk Effluent Water in Tertiary Hospitals in South Africa. J. Glob. Antimicrob. Resist. 2021, 27, 82–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Mapipa, Q.; Digban, T.O.; Nnolim, N.E.; Nontongana, N.; Okoh, A.I.; Nwodo, U.U. Molecular Characterization and Antibiotic Susceptibility Profile of Acinetobacter baumannii Recovered from Hospital Wastewater Effluents. Curr. Microbiol. 2022, 79, 123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Govender, R.; Amoah, I.D.; Kumari, S.; Bux, F.; Stenström, T.A. Detection of Multidrug Resistant Environmental Isolates of Acinetobacter and Stenotrophomonas maltophilia: A Possible Threat for Community Acquired Infections? J. Environ. Sci. Heal. Part A Toxic/Hazardous Subst. Environ. Eng. 2020, 56, 213–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Mann, B.C.; Bezuidenhout, J.J.; Bezuidenhout, C.C. Biocide Resistant and Antibiotic Cross-Resistant Potential Pathogens from Sewage and River Water from a Wastewater Treatment Facility in the North-West, Potchefstroom, South Africa. Water Sci. Technol. 2019, 80, 551–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Igbinosa, I.H.; Okoh, A.I. Antibiotic Susceptibility Profile of Aeromonas Species Isolated from Wastewater Treatment Plant. Sci. World J. 2012, 2012, 764563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Olaniran, A.O.; Nzimande, S.B.T.; Mkize, N.G. Antimicrobial Resistance and Virulence Signatures of Listeria and Aeromonas Species Recovered from Treated Wastewater Effluent and Receiving Surface Water in Durban, South Africa. BMC Microbiol. 2015, 15, 234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Govender, R.; Amoah, I.D.; Adegoke, A.A.; Singh, G.; Kumari, S.; Swalaha, F.M.; Bux, F.; Stenström, T.A. Identification, Antibiotic Resistance, and Virulence Profiling of Aeromonas and Pseudomonas Species from Wastewater and Surface Water. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2021, 193, 294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Ndlovu, T.; Rautenbach, M.; Vosloo, J.A.; Khan, S.; Khan, W. Characterisation and Antimicrobial Activity of Biosurfactant Extracts Produced by Bacillus amyloliquefaciens and Pseudomonas aeruginosa Isolated from a Wastewater Treatment Plant. AMB Express 2017, 7, 108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Gumede, S.N.; Abia, A.L.K.; Amoako, D.G.; Essack, S.Y. Analysis of Wastewater Reveals the Spread of Diverse Extended-Spectrum β-Lactamase-Producing E. coli Strains in Umgungundlovu District, South Africa. Antibiotics 2021, 10, 860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Adegoke, A.A.; Madu, C.E.; Aiyegoro, O.A.; Stenström, T.A.; Okoh, A.I. Antibiogram and Beta-Lactamase Genes among Cefotaxime Resistant E. coli from Wastewater Treatment Plant. Antimicrob. Resist. Infect. Control 2020, 9, 46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Pillay, L.; Olaniran, A.O. Assessment of Physicochemical Parameters and Prevalence of Virulent and Multiple-Antibiotic-Resistant Escherichia coli in Treated Effluent of Two Wastewater Treatment Plants and Receiving Aquatic Milieu in Durban, South Africa. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2016, 188, 260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Adefisoye, M.A.; Okoh, A.I.; Africa, S.; Adefisoye, M.A.; Okoh, A.I. Ecological and Public Health Implications of the Discharge of Multidrug-Resistant Bacteria and Physicochemical Contaminants from Treated Wastewater Effluents in the Eastern Cape, South Africa. Water 2017, 9, 562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  64. Adefisoye, M.A.; Okoh, A.I. Identification and Antimicrobial Resistance Prevalence of Pathogenic Escherichia coli Strains from Treated Wastewater Effluents in Eastern Cape, South Africa. Microbiologyopen 2016, 5, 143–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  65. Nzima, B.; Adegoke, A.A.; Ofon, U.A.; Al-Dahmoshi, H.O.M.; Saki, M.; Ndubuisi-Nnaji, U.U.; Inyang, C.U. Resistotyping and Extended-Spectrum Beta-Lactamase Genes among Escherichia coli from Wastewater Treatment Plants and Recipient Surface Water for Reuse in South Africa. New Microbes New Infect. 2020, 38, 100803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Osuolale, O.; Okoh, A. Human Enteric Bacteria and Viruses in Five Wastewater Treatment Plants in the Eastern Cape, South Africa. J. Infect. Public Health 2017, 10, 541–547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Igwaran, A.; Iweriebor, B.C.; Okoh, A.I. Molecular Characterization and Antimicrobial Resistance Pattern of Escherichia coli Recovered from Wastewater Treatment Plants in Eastern Cape South Africa. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 1237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  68. Mbanga, J.; Abia, A.L.K.; Amoako, D.G.; Essack, S.Y. Longitudinal Surveillance of Antibiotic Resistance in Escherichia coli and Enterococcus spp. From a Wastewater Treatment Plant and Its Associated Waters in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Microb. Drug Resist. 2021, 27, 904–918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Fadare, F.T.; Okoh, A.I. Distribution and Molecular Characterization of ESBL, PAmpC β-Lactamases, and Non-β-Lactam Encoding Genes in Enterobacteriaceae Isolated from Hospital Wastewater in Eastern Cape Province, South Africa. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0254753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Molale-Tom, L.G.; Bezuidenhout, C.C. Prevalence, Antibiotic Resistance and Virulence of Enterococcus spp. From Wastewater Treatment Plant Effluent and Receiving Waters in South Africa. J. Water Health 2020, 18, 753–765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Hamiwe, T.; Kock, M.M.; Magwira, C.A.; Antiabong, J.F.; Ehlers, M.M. Occurrence of Enterococci Harbouring Clinically Important Antibiotic Resistance Genes in the Aquatic Environment in Gauteng, South Africa. Environ. Pollut. 2019, 245, 1041–1049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Ekwanzala, M.D.; Dewar, J.B.; Kamika, I.; Momba, M.N.B. Comparative Genomics of Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococcus spp. Revealed Common Resistome Determinants from Hospital Wastewater to Aquatic Environments. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 719, 137275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. King, T.L.B.; Schmidt, S.; Essack, S.Y. Antibiotic Resistant Klebsiella spp. from a Hospital, Hospital Effluents and Wastewater Treatment Plants in the UMgungundlovu District, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 712, 135550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Hosu, M.C.; Vasaikar, S.; Okuthe, G.E.; Apalata, T. Molecular Detection of Antibiotic-Resistant Genes in Pseudomonas aeruginosa from Nonclinical Environment: Public Health Implications in Mthatha, Eastern Cape Province, South Africa. Int. J. Microbiol. 2021, 2021, 8861074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Odjadjare, E.E.; Igbinosa, E.O.; Mordi, R.; Igere, B.; Igeleke, C.L.; Okoh, A.I. Prevalence of Multiple Antibiotics Resistant (MAR) Pseudomonas Species in the Final Effluents of Three Municipal Wastewater Treatment Facilities in South Africa. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2012, 9, 2092–2107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  76. Odjadjare, E.C.; Olaniran, A.O. Prevalence of Antimicrobial Resistant and Virulent Salmonella spp. in Treated Effluent and Receiving Aquatic Milieu of Wastewater Treatment Plants in Durban, South Africa. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2015, 12, 9692–9713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  77. Ramessar, K.; Olaniran, A.O. Antibiogram and Molecular Characterization of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Recovered from Treated Wastewater Effluent and Receiving Surface Water in Durban, South Africa. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2019, 35, 142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Okoh, A.I.; Sibanda, T.; Nongogo, V.; Adefisoye, M.; Olayemi, O.O.; Nontongana, N. Prevalence and Characterisation of Non-Cholerae Vibrio Spp. in Final Effluents of Wastewater Treatment Facilities in Two Districts of the Eastern Cape Province of South Africa: Implications for Public Health. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2015, 22, 2008–2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  79. Olayinka Osuolale, A.O. Isolation and Antibiotic Profile Of Pakistan. J. Nutr. 2018, 10, 982–986. [Google Scholar]
  80. Jiang, L. Comparison of Disk Diffusion, Agar Dilution, and Broth Microdilution for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing of Five Chitosans. Fujian Agric. For. Univ. China 2011, 24–27. [Google Scholar]
  81. Cartwright, E.J.P.; Paterson, G.K.; Raven, K.E.; Harrison, E.M.; Gouliouris, T.; Kearns, A.; Pichon, B.; Edwards, G.; Skov, R.L.; Larsen, A.R.; et al. Use of Vitek 2 Antimicrobial Susceptibility Profile to Identify MecC in Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2013, 51, 2732–2734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  82. Kuchibiro, T.; Komatsu, M.; Yamasaki, K.; Nakamura, T.; Niki, M. Evaluation of the VITEK2 AST–XN17 Card for the Detection of Carbapenemase—Producing Enterobacterales in Isolates Primarily Producing Metallo β—Lactamase. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2022, 41, 723–732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Vasala, A.; Hytönen, V.P.; Laitinen, O.H. Modern Tools for Rapid Diagnostics of Antimicrobial Resistance. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2020, 10, 308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Ekwanzala, M.D.; Dewar, J.B.; Momba, M.N.B. Environmental Resistome Risks of Wastewaters and Aquatic Environments Deciphered by Shotgun Metagenomic Assembly. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2020, 197, 110612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Mbanga, J.; Amoako, D.G.; Abia, A.L.K.; Fatoba, D.; Essack, S. Genomic Analysis of Antibiotic-Resistant Enterobacter Spp. from Wastewater Sources in South Africa: The First Report of the Mobilisable Colistin Resistance Mcr-10 Gene in Africa. Ecol. Genet. Genomics 2021, 21, 100104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Coorevits, L.; Boelens, J.; Claeys, G. Direct Susceptibility Testing by Disk Diffusion on Clinical Samples: A Rapid and Accurate Tool for Antibiotic Stewardship. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2015, 34, 1207–1212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  87. Gajic, I.; Kabic, J.; Kekic, D.; Jovicevic, M.; Milenkovic, M.; Mitic Culafic, D.; Trudic, A.; Ranin, L.; Opavski, N. Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing: A Comprehensive Review of Currently Used Methods. Antibiotics 2022, 11, 427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Hendriksen, R.S.; Bortolaia, V.; Tate, H.; Tyson, G.H.; Aarestrup, F.M.; McDermott, P.F. Using Genomics to Track Global Antimicrobial Resistance. Front. Public Health 2019, 7, 242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  89. Igbinosa, I.H.; Nwodo, U.U.; Sosa, A.; Tom, M.; Okoh, A.I. Commensal Pseudomonas Species Isolated from Wastewater and Freshwater Milieus in the Eastern Cape Province, South Africa, as Reservoir of Antibiotic Resistant Determinants. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2012, 9, 2537–2549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  90. Gonzales, L.; Joffre, E.; Rivera, R.; Sjöling, Å.; Svennerholm, A.M.; Iñiguez, V. Prevalence, Seasonality and Severity of Disease Caused by Pathogenic Escherichia coli in Children with Diarrhoea in Bolivia. J. Med. Microbiol. 2013, 62, 1697–1706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  91. Munksgaard, D.G.; Young, J.C. Flow and Load Variations at Wastewater Treatment Plants. J. Water Pollut. Control Fed. 1980, 52, 2131–2144. [Google Scholar]
  92. Alhumaid, S.; Al Mutair, A.; Al Alawi, Z.; Alzahrani, A.J.; Tobaiqy, M.; Alresasi, A.M.; Bu-Shehab, I.; Al-Hadary, I.; Alhmeed, N.; Alismail, M.; et al. Antimicrobial Susceptibility of Gram-Positive and Gram-Negative Bacteria: A 5-Year Retrospective Analysis at a Multi-Hospital Healthcare System in Saudi Arabia. Ann. Clin. Microbiol. Antimicrob. 2021, 20, 43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Jubeh, B.; Breijyeh, Z.; Karaman, R. Resistance of Gram-Positive Bacteria to Current Antibacterial Agents and Overcoming Approaches. Molecules 2020, 25, 2888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Edwards, D.J. Dissemination of Research Results: On the Path to Practice Change. Can. J. Hosp. Pharm. 2015, 68, 465–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  95. Ross-Hellauer, T.; Tennant, J.P.; Banelytė, V.; Gorogh, E.; Luzi, D.; Kraker, P.; Pisacane, L.; Ruggieri, R.; Sifacaki, E.; Vignoli, M. Ten Simple Rules for Innovative Dissemination of Research. PLoS Comput. Biol. 2020, 16, e1007704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Figure 1. Distribution of African studies on AMR in wastewater between 2012 and 2022. Numbers represent the number of studies identified within the reviewed period. Only counties that reported at least one study in the review period are labelled.
Figure 1. Distribution of African studies on AMR in wastewater between 2012 and 2022. Numbers represent the number of studies identified within the reviewed period. Only counties that reported at least one study in the review period are labelled.
Antibiotics 12 00805 g001
Figure 2. Trend in ARM studies focusing on wastewater. The red line shows the increasing trend within the reviewed period.
Figure 2. Trend in ARM studies focusing on wastewater. The red line shows the increasing trend within the reviewed period.
Antibiotics 12 00805 g002
Figure 3. Distribution of South African studies on the wastewater resistome between 2012 and 2022. a = population (https://www.statssa.gov.za/publications/P0302/P03022022.pdf (accessed on 19 April 2023)); b = number of WWTPs in province [44]; c = number of studies.
Figure 3. Distribution of South African studies on the wastewater resistome between 2012 and 2022. a = population (https://www.statssa.gov.za/publications/P0302/P03022022.pdf (accessed on 19 April 2023)); b = number of WWTPs in province [44]; c = number of studies.
Antibiotics 12 00805 g003
Figure 4. Various wastewater sources evaluated for AMR in South Africa between 2012 and 2022.
Figure 4. Various wastewater sources evaluated for AMR in South Africa between 2012 and 2022.
Antibiotics 12 00805 g004
Figure 5. Main micro-organisms identified in South African wastewater (2012–2022).
Figure 5. Main micro-organisms identified in South African wastewater (2012–2022).
Antibiotics 12 00805 g005
Table 1. Summary of some studies on AMR in wastewater in Africa between 2012 and 2022.
Table 1. Summary of some studies on AMR in wastewater in Africa between 2012 and 2022.
Country& Wastewater Type/SourceDuration of StudySample SizeTargeted ResistancePhenotypic (P)/Genotypic (G) ResistanceMethodReference
* South AfricaWWTPTwo campaigns—actual duration not mentioned# Not indicatedCefotaxime-resistancePCulture[23]
AlgeriaWWTP3 days in 2 monthsNot indicatedESBLs and associated quinolone resistanceP, GCulture; PCR[24]
BotswanaWWTP$ One-off samplingoneOverall resistomeGShotgun metagenomics[25]
BotswanaWWTPMonthly for 1 year72General resistance—9 antibiotics testedPCulture[26]
Burkina FasoUrban channel6 months101ESBLsPCulture[27]
Burkina FasoWWTPMonthly for 5 months15General resistance—19 antibioticsPCulture[28]
CameroonOpen-air canalsOne-off6 (composite) samplesOverall resistomeGShotgun metagenomics[29]
EthiopiaHospital wastewater3 months27General resistance—13 antibioticsPCulture[30]
EthiopiaHospital wastewater4 months40 (composite samples)General resistance—13 antibioticsPCulture[31]
GhanaWWTPMonthly—6 months30General resistancePCulture[32]
KenyaUniversity WWTP4 monthsNot mentionedOverall resistomeP, GCulture; whole-genome sequencing[33]
KenyaSeptic tank2 monthsNot mentionedGeneral resistancePCulture[34]
KenyaWWTP6 months (covering the dry and rainy seasons)24General resistancePCulture[35]
NigeriaHospital WWTPWeekly for 4 monthsNot mentionedESBLsP, GCulture; PCRAdekanmbi
SenegalSlaughterhouse wastewater and WWTPNot mentionedNot mentionedGeneral resistance—16 antibioticsPCulture[36]
South AfricaWWTP7 months (Every two weeks)81Overall resistomeP, GCulture; whole-genome sequencing[37]
TanzaniaWWTP2013/2014 (Not specific)52General resistance—14 antibioticsPMicrodilution[38]
TunisiaWWTPNot mentionedNot mentionedintI1, ARGs blaCTX-M,
blaTEM, qnrA, qnrS, sul I, ermB
GPCR[39]
UgandaMultiple sourcesNot mentionedNot mentionedGeneral resistance—15 antibioticsPCulture[40]
ZambiaWastewater pondsNot mentioned5 samplesGeneral resistance—8 antibioticsPCulture[41]
ZimbabweAbattoir wastewater3 months600 samplesGeneral resistance—16 antibioticsPCulture[42]
* Part of a multinational (22 countries) study in Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia, and North America. # A total of 472 samples were collected from all the countries. $ Analysed once and used to irrigate soil. Focus was not on the monitoring of the wastewater resistome, but the impact of the wastewater in the soil resistome. & Includes influent or effluent or both.
Table 2. Media and incubation conditions used for the identification of different micro-organisms in waterwater AMR studies in South Africa between 2012 and 2022.
Table 2. Media and incubation conditions used for the identification of different micro-organisms in waterwater AMR studies in South Africa between 2012 and 2022.
OrganismMediaIncubation Temperature (°C)Duration (Hours)Reference
Brevibacillus spp.; Paenibacillus spp.R2A mediaNot mentioned (NM)NM[51]
Acinetobacter baumanniiLeeds Acinetobacter Medium3724[52]
Acinetobacter baumannii; Acinetobacter spp.CHROMagar Acinetobacter3718–24[53,54]
Aeromonas, ExiguobacteriumNutrient agar, Blood agarNMNM[55]
Aeromonas spp.Glutamate Starch Phenol-red (GSP) agar plates3724[56]
Aeromonas spp.Rimler-Shotts agar3720[57]
Aeromonas spp.Aeromonas spp. Isolation agar3724[58]
Bacillus amyloliquefaciensnutrient agar3718–24[59]
Bacillus spp.Nutrient agar, Blood agarNMNM[55]
Bacillus spp.R2A mediaNMNM[51]
E. coliEosin methylene blue agar3724[60]
E. coliMembrane Fecal Coliform (mFC) agar supplemented with 4 mg/L or 8 mg/L cefotaxime antibiotic3724[61]
E. coliChromocult Coliform Agar (Merck)3724[62]
E. coliE. coli-Coliforms Chromogenic medium3724[63,64]
E. coliCHROMagar ECC3724[65]
E. coliE. coli-coliform selective agar3724[66]
E. coliChromogenic agar *3724[67]
E. coliColilert-18TM3724[68]
EnterobacteriaceaeViolet Red Bile Glucose (VRBG) agar3718[69]
Enterococcus spp.R2A mediaNMNM[51]
Enterococcus spp.KF-Streptococcus agar containing 1 mL of 2,3,5-Triphenyltetrazolium chloride3748[70]
Enterococcus spp.chromogenic 51,759 HiCrome™ Rapid Enterococci Agar media3724–48[71]
Enterococcus spp.Tryptic Soy Broth3718[67]
Enterococcus spp.Bile Aesculin Azide Agar3724[67]
Enterococcus spp.CHROMagar™ VRE, BBL™ Enterococcosel™ Broth37 ± 2 °C18 to 24[72]
Enterococcus spp.EnterolertTM4124–48[68]
Klebsiella spp.Nutrient agar, Blood agarNMNM[55]
Klebsiella spp.HiCrome Klebsiella selective agar3524[73]
Listeria spp.Listeria Chromogenic agar3524–48[57]
Pseudomonas aeruginosaMineral salt medium3018–24[59]
Pseudomonas aeruginosaCHROMagarTM Pseudomonas3724–48[74]
Pseudomonas spp.Nutrient agar, Blood agarNMNM[55]
Pseudomonas spp.R2A mediaNMNM[51]
Pseudomonas spp.Pseudomonas Isolation Agar3524–48[75]
Pseudomonas spp.Cetrimide agar3724[58]
Pseudomonas spp.Glutamate Starch Phenol-red (GSP) agar3724[56]
Salmonella spp.Salmonella-Shigella (SS) agar3724–48[76]
Shewanella spp.Nutrient agar, Blood agarNMNM[55]
Staphylococcus aureusMannitol Salt Agar supplemented with cefoxitin.Not mentioned (NM)NM[77]
Stenotrophomonas maltophiliaStenotrophomonas selective agar base with Vancomycin Imipenem Amphotericin B (VIA) supplement3718 to 24[54]
Vibrio spp.thiosulfate-citrate–bile salt-sucrose (TCBS) agar3724[63,78,79]
* Specific media was not mentioned.
Table 3. Summary of AMR studies on WWTPs in South Africa (2012–2022).
Table 3. Summary of AMR studies on WWTPs in South Africa (2012–2022).
Organism(s)Antibiotics Tested
(n = Number Tested)
Phenotypic
Resistance
Genotypic ResistanceMethodReference
E. colin = 23:
Amoxicillin/clavulanic acid, amoxicillin, amikacin, ampicillin, cefepime, cephalothin, cefotaxime, cefoxitin, cefixime, nalidixic acid, ceftazidime, cephalexin, cefuroxime, chloramphenicol, ciprofloxacin, gentamicin, imipenem, meropenem, nitrofurantoin, piperacillin, tetracycline, tigecycline, trimethoprim/Sulfamethoxazole.
Amoxicillin/clavulanic acid, amoxicillin, amikacin, ampicillin, cefepime, cephalothin, cefotaxime, cefoxitin, cefixime, ceftazidime, cephalexin, cefuroxime, chloramphenicol, ciprofloxacin, gentamicin, imipenem, meropenem, nitrofurantoin, piperacillin, tetracycline, tigecycline, nalidixic acid, trimethoprim/Sulfamethoxazole.TEM, SHV, CTX-MDD/PCR-Sanger Sequencing[60]
E. colin = 8:
Meropenem, colistin, amoxicillin/clavulanic, ciprofloxacin, nitrofurantoin trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazol, gentamicin, tetracycline.
Colistin, amoxicillin-clavulanic, ciprofloxacin, trimethoprimsulphamethoxazole, gentamicin, tetracycline, nitrofurantoin.TEM, SHV, CTX-M, VIM, OXA-1, KPC-2, NDM-1DD/PCR[61]
S. aureusn = 20:
Amikacin, Gentamicin, Amoxicillin/clavulanic acid, Ampicillin, Oxacillin, Penicillin, Imipenem, Cefoxitin, Cefozolin, Ciprofloxacin, Norfloxacin, Vancomycin, Clindamycin, Lincomycin, Azithromycin, Erythromycin, Chloramphenicol, Rifampicin, Tetracycline Sulfamethoxazole/trimethoprim.
Amikacin, Gentamicin, Amoxicillin/clavulanic acid, Ampicillin, Oxacillin, Penicillin, Imipenem, Cefoxitin, Cefozolin, Norfloxacin, Vancomycin, Clindamycin, Lincomycin, Azithromycin, Erythromycin, Chloramphenicol, Rifampicin, Sulfamethoxazole/trimethoprim, Tetracycline.aac(6′)/aph(2″), blaZ, ermC, msrA and tetK,DD/PCR[77]
Klebsiella spp.n = 16:
Amoxicillin-clavulanic acid, piperacillin-tazobactam, cefotaxime, ceftazidime, cefalexin, cefoxitin, ertapenem, meropenem, doripenem, imipenem, aztreonam, ciprofloxacin, norfloxacin, moxifloxacin, gentamicin, tobramycin.
Amoxicillin-clavulanic acid, piperacillin-tazobactam, cefotaxime, ceftazidime, cefalexin, cefoxitin, ertapenem, doripenem, aztreonam, ciprofloxacin, norfloxacin, moxifloxacin, gentamicin, tobramycin. DD[73]
Aeromonas spp.n = 20:
Ciprofloxacin, Trimethoprim, Ofloxacin, Chloramphenicol, Penicillins, Clindamycin, Ampicillin-sulbactam, Ampicillin, Gentamicin, Nalidixic acid, Cefotaxime, Nitrofurantoin, Oxacillin, Sulphamethoxazole, Cephalothin, Erythromycin, Tetracycline, Minocycline, vancomycin, Rifamycin.
Ciprofloxacin, Trimethoprim, Chloramphenicol, Penicillins, Clindamycin, Ampicillin-sulbactam, Oxacillin, Ampicillin, Gentamicin, Nalidixic acid, Cefotaxime, Nitrofurantoin, Sulphamethoxazole, Cephalothin, Erythromycin, Tetracycline, Minocycline, vancomycin, Rifamycin.blaP1class A β-lactamase (pse1-PSE-1/CARB-2), blaTEM, TetC, Class 1 integron, Class 2 integronDD/PCR[56]
Listeria spp.n = 24:
Penicillin, Cephalothin, Gentamicin, Kanamycin, Amikacin, Ertapenem, Meropenem, Cefotaxime, Ceftriaxone, Vancomycin, Clindamycin, Erythromycin, Nitrofurantoin, Ampicillin, Colistin, Nalidixic acid, Mixofloxacin, Fusidic Acid Ciprofloxacin, Trimethoprim, Tetracycline, Streptomycin, Fosfomycin Chloramphenicol.
Penicillin, Cephalothin, Kanamycin, Ertapenem, Cefotaxime, Ceftriaxone, Vancomycin, Clindamycin, Erythromycin, Nitrofurantoin, Ampicillin, Colistin, Nalidixic acid, Mixofloxacin, Trimethoprim, Tetracycline, DD[57]
Aeromonas spp.Penicillin, Cephalothin, Kanamycin, Ertapenem, Meropenem, Cefotaxime, Ceftriaxone, Vancomycin, Clindamycin, Erythromycin, Nitrofurantoin, Ampicillin, Colistin, Nalidixic acid, Mixofloxacin, Trimethoprim, Tetracycline, Streptomycin, Chloramphenicol, Fosfomycin, Fusidic Acid.
E. colin = 13:
Ampicillin, amoxicillin, cephalothin, cefazolin, ceftazidime, tetracycline, doxycycline, chloramphenicol, amikacin, gentamicin, nalidixicacid, norfloxacin, fosfomycin.
Ampicillin, amoxicillin, cephalothin, ceftazidime, tetracycline, doxycycline, chloramphenicol, nalidixic acid, norfloxacin, fosfomycin. DD[62]
Klebsiella
Bacillus
Pseudomonas
Aeromonas Exiguobacterium
Shewanella spp.
n = 6:
Vancomycin, kanamycin, trimethoprim, oxytetracycline, amoxicillin and chloramphenicol.
Vancomycin, kanamycin, trimethoprim, oxytetracycline, amoxicillin and chloramphenicol. BD[55]
Enterococcus spp.n = 1:
Vancomycin
erm(B) was, VREfm, vanA (vanA, vanHA, vanRA, vanSA, vanYA and vanZA gene clusters), vanG (vanRG), vanN (vanRN) and vanL (vanSL), vanC (vanC1XY, vanSC, vanRC and vanXYC), isa(A), et(M), aac(6′)-IiWGS[72]
Enterobacteriaceaen = 18:
Doxycycline, tetracycline, ampicillin, gentamicin, meropenem amoxicillin/clavulanic acid, amikacin, nitrofurantoin, cefuroxime, cefotaxime, norfloxacin, ciprofloxacin, chloramphenicol, nalidixic acid, colistin sulphate, polymyxin, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, imipenem.
Gentamycin, neomycin, penicillin G, nitrofurantoin, polymyxin B, cefuroxime.ESBL (blaCTX-M, blaTEM, blaSHV, blaGES, blaIMP, blaKPC, blaVIM, blaOXA-1-like,blaPER, blaOXA-48-like, and blaVEB), pAmpC (blaACC, blaEBC, blaFOX,blaCIT, blaDHA, and blaMOX), non-β-lactam (aadA, catI,catII, strA, sulI, sulII, tetA, tetB, tetC, tetD, tetK, and tetM)DD/PCR[69]
E. colin = 18:
Ampicillin, amikacin, imipenem, meropenem, streptomycin, ciprofloxacin, chloramphenicol, nalidixic, tetracycline, trimethoprim, norfloxacin, Sulfamethoxazole, gentamycin, neomycin, penicillin G, nitrofurantoin, polymyxin B, cefuroxime.
blaTEM, blaSHV, blaZ, blaCTX-M, aadA, strA, tetA, tetB, tetK and tetM,DD/PCR[63]
Vibrio spp.Ampicillin, amikacin, imipenem, meropenem, streptomycin, chloramphenicol, ciprofloxacin, nalidixic, tetracycline, trimethoprim, norfloxacin, Sulfamethoxazole, gentamycin, neomycin, penicillin G, nitrofurantoin, polymyxin B, cefuroxime.
Enterococcus spp.n = 14:
Chloramphenicol, tetracycline, ampicillin, nitrofurantoin, ciprofloxacin, levofloxacin, imipenem, linezolid, erythromycin, quinupristin-dalfopristin, tigecycline, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, vancomycin, teicoplanin.
lsa(A), msr(C), msr(D), erm(B), and mef(A), tet(S), tet(M), and tet(L), aac(60)-aph(200), ant(6)-Ia, aph(30)-III, aac(60)-Iid, aac(60)-Iih, dfrGDD/WGS[37]
E. colin = 17:
Ampicillin, amikacin, imipenem, meropenem, streptomycin, cefotaxime, chloramphenicol, cephalexin, ciprofloxacin, nalidixic acid, tetracycline, norfloxacin, gentamicin, cefuroxime, polymyxin B, colistin sulfate, and nitrofurantoin.
Ampicillin, amikacin, streptomycin, chloramphenicol, ciprofloxacin, cephalexin, nalidixic acid, tetracycline, norfloxacin, gentamicin, cefuroxime, cefotaxime, polymyxin B, colistin sulfate, and nitrofurantoin.strA, aadA, cat I, cat II, cmlA1, ampC, blaZ, blaTEM, tetA, tetB, tetC, tetD, tetK, tetMDD/PCR[64]
Aeromonas spp.n = 12:
Ampicillin, ceftazidime, cefixime, polymyxin B, colistin, ciprofloxacin, levofloxacin, ofloxacin, minocycline, meropenem, imipenem, trimethoprim-sulphamethoxazole.
Ampicillin, ceftazidime, cefixime, polymyxin B, colistin, ciprofloxacin, levofloxacin, minocycline, meropenem, imipenem, trimethoprim-sulphamethoxazole.blaTEM, blaAmpC, AmpC/blaOXA, mcr-1,DD/PCR[58]
Pseudomonas spp.Ampicillin, ceftazidime, cefixime, polymyxin B, colistin, ciprofloxacin, levofloxacin, ofloxacin, minocycline, meropenem, imipenem, trimethoprim-sulphamethoxazole.
Enterococci ermA,ermB and ermC, tetK, tetM and tetL, vanA, vanB and vanC, aph(3‘)-IIIa, ant(4‘)-Ia,aac(6′)-Ie-aph(2”)-IaPCR[71]
Vibrio spp.n = 13:
Imipenem, nalidixic acid, erythromycin, gentamicin, Sulfamethoxazole, cefuroxime, penicillin G, chloramphenicol, polymixin B, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, tetracycline, meropenem and trimethoprim.
Nalidixic acid, erythromycin, Sulfamethoxazole, cefuroxime, penicillin G, chloramphenicol, polymixin B, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, tetracycline and trimethoprim. DD[78]
Salmonella spp.n = 20:
Cephalothin, Imipenem, Cefoxitin, Cefuroxime, Piperacillin, Ampicillin, Cefixime, Ceftazidime, Aztreonam, Gentamycin, Amikacin, Streptomycin, Chloramphenicol, Tetracycline, Ciprofloxacin, Norfloxacin, Nalidixic acid, Nitrofurantoin, Sulfamethoxazole Trimethoprim/Sulfamethoxazole.
Imipenem, Piperacillin, Ampicillin, Cefixime, Ceftazidime, Streptomycin, Nalidixic acid, Sulfamethoxazole. DD[76]
Pseudomonas spp.n = 19:
Ampicillin, cefotaxime, cephalothin, cefepime, chloramphenicol, clindamycin, erythromycin, gentamicin, minocycline, nalidixic acid, nitrofurantoin, ofloxacin, oxacillin, penicillin G, rifampin, sulphamethoxazole, tetracycline, vancomycin, ampicillin-sulbactam.
Ampicillin, cefotaxime, cephalothin, cefepime, chloramphenicol, clindamycin, minocycline, nalidixic acid, nitrofurantoin, oxacillin, penicillin G, rifampin, sulphamethoxazole, tetracycline, vancomycin, ampicillin-sulbactam. DD[75]
Enterococcus spp.n = 11:
Ampicillin, amoxicillin, penicillin, neomycin, streptomycin, vancomycin, chloramphenicol, ciprofloxacin, tetracycline, trimethoprim, erythromycin.
Ampicillin, amoxicillin, penicillin, neomycin, streptomycin, vancomycin, chloramphenicol, ciprofloxacin, tetracycline, trimethoprim, erythromycin. DD[70]
E. colin = 9:
Ampicillin, penicillin, ciprofloxacin, tetracycline, trimethoprim, cefotaxime, ceftazidime, imipenem and meropenem.
Ampicillin, penicillin, ciprofloxacin, tetracycline, trimethoprim, cefotaxime, ceftazidime.Alr, blaTEM, blaSHV and blaCTX-MDD/PCR[65]
Bacillus, Pseudomonas, Enterococcus, Brevibacillus, Paenibacillusn = 3
Penicillin G, vancomycin, erythromycin.
Vancomycin
Erythromycin
Penicillin G
DD[51]
E. colin = 12:
Amoxicillin, Cefuroxime, Gentamicin, Doxycycline, Ciprofloxacin, Ofloxacin, Trimithoprime, Menopenem, Colistin sulphate, Erythromycin, Clindamycin, Sulphamethoxazole.
Amoxicillin, Cefuroxime, Gentamicin, Doxycycline, Ciprofloxacin, Ofloxacin, Trimithoprime, Menopenem, Colistin sulphate, Erythromycin, Clindamycin, Sulphamethoxazole. DD[67]
Pseudomonas spp.n = 20:
Penicillins, clinamycins, ciprofloxacin, rafamycin, trimethoprim, sulphamethoxazole, gentamicin, chloramphenicol, tetracycline, erythromycin, minocycline, vacomycin, cefotaxime, nalidixic acid, nitrofurantoin, cephalothin, ofloxacin, ampicillin, ampicillin-sulbactam, oxacillin.
Penicillins, clinamycins, rafamycin, trimethoprim, sulphamethoxazole, chloramphenicol, tetracycline, minocycline, vacomycin, cefotaxime, nalidixic acid, nitrofurantoin, cephalothin, ampicillin, ampicillin-sulbactam, oxacillin.blaTEM, blaOXA, blaAmpC, TetC,DD/PCR[89]
Escherichia coli
Enterococcus spp.
n = 22:
Amikacin, ampicillin, azithromycin, amoxicillin-clavulanic acid, cefepime, cefotaxime, cefoxitin, ceftazidime, ceftriaxone, cephalexin, ciprofloxacin, chloramphenicol, gentamicin, imipenem, meropenem, nalidixic acid, piperacillin-tazobactam, tetracycline, tigecycline, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole.
[68]
n = 16:
Imipenem, Ampicillin, tetracycline, Nitrofurantoin, quinupristin-dalfopristin, tigecycline, Linezolid, ciprofloxacin, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, Levofloxacin, Teicoplanin, vancomycin, Gentamycin, Streptomycin, Erythromycin, chloramphenicol.
DD = Disk diffusion; BD = Broth dilution; PCR = Polymerase chain reaction; WGS = Whole-genome sequencing 3.5. Water research funding.
Table 4. Past WRC-funded projects.
Table 4. Past WRC-funded projects.
SNReport NumberProject TitleYearAimWWTPAST
11126/1/05Enteric pathogens
in water sources and stools
of residents in the Venda region of the Limpopo Province
2005Identify and characterise enteric pathogens in water sources and
stool samples of residents in the Venda region of the Limpopo Province
NoYes
21967/1/13Investigations into the existence of unique environmental Escherichia coli populations2013Identify and characterise E. coli from chosen localities and different samplesNoNo
32138/1/16An investigation into the presence of free-living amoebae and amoeba-resistant bacteria in drinking water distribution systems of health care institutions in Johannesburg, South Africa2016To establish the occurrence of free-living amoebae and amoeba
resistant bacteria within the drinking water distribution system in health care facilities in Johannesburg and also
highlight the potential human health risk implication thereof
YesNo
42432/1/18Cholera Monitoring and Response Guidelines2018The development of cholera monitoring and response guidelines for inclusion in the water resource monitoring programme.YesYes
52585/1/19Antibiotic-resistant bacteria and genes in drinking water.
Implications for drinking water production and
quality monitoring
2019Identify and characterise microbial parameters in drinking water systemsNoYes
62610/1/18Microplastics in freshwater water environments2018Identify and characterise microplastics in freshwater, drinking water and groundwaterNoNo
72706/1/21Measurement of water pollution determining the sources and changes of microbial contamination and impact on food safety from farming to retail level for fresh vegetables2021To determine the link between water pollution and crop contamination and to determine sources of microbial product contamination, and assess the impact on food safety from farming to retail for selected fresh vegetable supply chainsNoYes
82733/1/20Substances of emerging concern in South African aquatic ecosystems2020Identify and evaluate different contaminants of emerging concern in different water sourcesYesNo
91655/1/10Identification of Arsenic Resistance Genes in Micro-organisms from Maturing Fly Ash-Acid Mine Drainage Neutralised Solids2011To isolate micro-organisms resistant to arsenic from matured AMD-FA neutralized solids, to characterize their arsenic resistance systems and to assess whether these organisms pose a potential ‘threat’ to the sustained use of ‘Neutralization Solids’NoNo
10KV 360/16A Scoping Study on the Levels of Antimicrobials and Presence of Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria in Drinking Water2016To provide an overview of the levels of antimicrobials and the presence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in selected drinking water treatment systems (drinking water production facilities)NoYes
11TT 742/1/17Emerging contaminants in wastewater treated for
direct potable reuse: the human health risk
priorities in South Africa
2018Identify and evaluate different contaminants of emerging concern in different water sourcesYesNo
12 The epidemiology and cost of treating diarrhoea in South Africa Identify and characterise enteric pathogens in water sources and
stool samples of residents in the Venda region of the Limpopo Province
NoYes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Abia, A.L.K.; Baloyi, T.; Traore, A.N.; Potgieter, N. The African Wastewater Resistome: Identifying Knowledge Gaps to Inform Future Research Directions. Antibiotics 2023, 12, 805. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics12050805

AMA Style

Abia ALK, Baloyi T, Traore AN, Potgieter N. The African Wastewater Resistome: Identifying Knowledge Gaps to Inform Future Research Directions. Antibiotics. 2023; 12(5):805. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics12050805

Chicago/Turabian Style

Abia, Akebe Luther King, Themba Baloyi, Afsatou N. Traore, and Natasha Potgieter. 2023. "The African Wastewater Resistome: Identifying Knowledge Gaps to Inform Future Research Directions" Antibiotics 12, no. 5: 805. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics12050805

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop