大肠噬菌体
枚举
指示菌
源跟踪
粪大肠菌群
环境科学
气单胞菌
生物
微生物学
兽医学
水质
噬菌体
环境化学
细菌
化学
生态学
大肠杆菌
数学
医学
计算机科学
基因
组合数学
万维网
生物化学
遗传学
作者
Matthew Price,A. Denene Blackwood,Rachel T. Noble
标识
DOI:10.1093/lambio/ovad081
摘要
This study aimed to understand the performance and utility of US EPA-approved coliphage methods in comparison to fecal indicator bacteria (FIB) and molecular microbial source tracking (MST) methods in recreational waters. We used US EPA Method 1642 to quantify concentrations of coliphage along with culture- and molecular-based enumeration of E. coli and Enterococcus sp, and human fecal source marker HF183. We also conducted a feasibility assessment to determine the utility of US EPA Method 1642 for application to routine recreational water monitoring. Ten sampling events were conducted at three sampling sites over the duration of a year. Average concentrations of somatic (SC) (log10 1.48 PFU/100 mL) and male-specific (MSC) coliphages (log10 1.00 PFU/100 mL) at all sites were low with SC found across a broader range (0.3-3.1 log10 PFU/100 mL) of concentrations compared to MSC (non-detect-1.7 log10 PFU/100 mL). A feasibility assessment was conducted across US EPA Method 1642 for coliphage enumeration, culture-based FIB, defined substrate technology (DST) approaches Enterolert™ and Colilert®, and quantitative microbial source tracking (qMST) US EPA Method 1696. US EPA Method 1642 had the longest processing times, but also was moderate in cost, compared to the DST and qMST molecular methods. Given the poor correlations between MSC and SC with FIB and qMST markers in this study and the cumbersome nature of US EPA Method 1642, the method may not be the most applicable method for use in systems impacted predominantly by stormwater and other non-point source pollution. Findings from this study, however, provide guidance on the application of fecal indicator virus in ambient coastal surface waters.
科研通智能强力驱动
Strongly Powered by AbleSci AI