Validation of Rapid Methods for Enumeration of Markers for Human Sewage Contamination in Recreational Waters

WERF Report PATH3C09

Ebook only

Available as an ebook

Please purchase via www.iwaponline.comOpens in new window

Also part of Water Intelligence Online Digital Reference Library

Standard ePrice: £28.00


Access ebook

Author(s): Valerie J. Harwood

Publication Date: 29/06/2011

Pages: 120

ISBN13: 9781780400020

eISBN: 9781780400020

Download book flyer Print page

Rapid methods of water quality assessment are essential for informing the public and officials of sewage-polluted water in a timely manner. Since fecal indicator bacteria can be contributed to the water by many sources, not all of which have equal risk for human health, rapid, quantitative methods that can discriminate human from non-human fecal contamination are informative for risk assessment and to identify problems in infrastructure or land use that contribute to degradation of water quality.

This work compared standard, membrane filtration-based measures of the fecal indicator bacteria E. coli and enterococci to qPCR methods in terms of quantitative correlation and consistency of performance in various types of waters. Furthermore, the genes of two human-associated microorganisms, one from the bacterial group Bacteroidales and one from human polyomaviruses JCV and BKV, were used to quantitatively assess the presence of human sewage using qPCR in various types of subtropical waters in Florida, including fresh, brackish and salt waters.

The qPCR methods performed well across the range of water types, although highly tannic water types (e.g. swamp-fed river) were more likely to be subject to inhibition than lake, estuarine or marine waters. Clean-up of inhibited samples by chemical methods produced highly variable results, therefore dilution of template material proved to be a better option for relieving inhibition. Concentrations of qPCR targets for which culture-dependent methods exist were generally in agreement when culture and qPCR methods were compared.

Comparison of three different sample processing methods showed that the EPA CE and PE methods were superior to the USF methods for bacterial targets, but not for HPyVs. The EPA CE method had less sample-sample variability than the PE method, but also had a higher detection limit, making it potentially less sensitive than the PE method.


Also available as part of your Water Inteligence Online subscription

Valerie J. Harwood

The latest from @IWApublishing

🚨Final few days to submit to this Special Issue of Research! Check out the for suitable… 6 hours 46 min ago
Article Spotlight: 'Pioneering a Green Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) alignment between China and other members: m… 1 day 10 hours ago
🚨2 months left to submit your paper to this exciting JOINT Special Issue of Water Science & Technology and Water Su… 2 days 7 hours ago