AIMS: The absence of standardized methods for quantifying faecal indicator bacteria (FIB) in sand hinders comparison of results across studies. The purpose of the study was to compare methods for extraction of faecal bacteria from sands and recommend a standardized extraction technique. METHODS AND RESULTS: Twenty-two methods of extracting enterococci and Escherichia coli from sand were evaluated, including multiple permutations of hand shaking, mechanical shaking, blending, sonication, number of rinses, settling time, eluant-to-sand ratio, eluant composition, prefiltration and type of decantation. Tests were performed on sands from California, Florida and Lake Michigan. Most extraction parameters did not significantly affect bacterial enumeration. anova revealed significant effects of eluant composition and blending; with both sodium metaphosphate buffer and blending producing reduced counts. CONCLUSIONS: The simplest extraction method that produced the highest FIB recoveries consisted of 2 min of hand shaking in phosphate-buffered saline or deionized water, a 30-s settling time, one-rinse step and a 10 : 1 eluant volume to sand weight ratio. This result was consistent across the sand compositions tested in this study but could vary for other sand types. SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPACT OF THE STUDY: Method standardization will improve the understanding of how sands affect surface water quality.
AIMS: The absence of standardized methods for quantifying faecal indicator bacteria (FIB) in sand hinders comparison of results across studies. The purpose of the study was to compare methods for extraction of faecal bacteria from sands and recommend a standardized extraction technique. METHODS AND RESULTS: Twenty-two methods of extracting enterococci and Escherichia coli from sand were evaluated, including multiple permutations of hand shaking, mechanical shaking, blending, sonication, number of rinses, settling time, eluant-to-sand ratio, eluant composition, prefiltration and type of decantation. Tests were performed on sands from California, Florida and Lake Michigan. Most extraction parameters did not significantly affect bacterial enumeration. anova revealed significant effects of eluant composition and blending; with both sodium metaphosphate buffer and blending producing reduced counts. CONCLUSIONS: The simplest extraction method that produced the highest FIB recoveries consisted of 2 min of hand shaking in phosphate-buffered saline or deionized water, a 30-s settling time, one-rinse step and a 10 : 1 eluant volume to sand weight ratio. This result was consistent across the sand compositions tested in this study but could vary for other sand types. SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPACT OF THE STUDY: Method standardization will improve the understanding of how sands affect surface water quality.
Authors: Hueiwang C Jeng; Andrew J England; Henry B Bradford Journal: J Environ Sci Health A Tox Hazard Subst Environ Eng Date: 2005 Impact factor: 2.269
Authors: Christine M Lee; Tiffany Y Lin; Chu-Ching Lin; Golenaz A Kohbodi; Anita Bhatt; Robin Lee; Jennifer A Jay Journal: Water Res Date: 2006-06-21 Impact factor: 11.236
Authors: Matthew C Phillips; Helena M Solo-Gabriele; Alan M Piggot; James S Klaus; Yifan Zhang Journal: Water Res Date: 2011-10-25 Impact factor: 11.236
Authors: Alan M Piggot; James S Klaus; Sara Johnson; Matthew C Phillips; Helena M Solo-Gabriele Journal: Appl Environ Microbiol Date: 2012-06-15 Impact factor: 4.792
Authors: Christina Frick; Julia Vierheilig; Rita Linke; Domenico Savio; Horst Zornig; Roswitha Antensteiner; Christian Baumgartner; Christian Bucher; Alfred P Blaschke; Julia Derx; Alexander K T Kirschner; Gabriela Ryzinska-Paier; René Mayer; Dagmar Seidl; Theodossia Nadiotis-Tsaka; Regina Sommer; Andreas H Farnleitner Journal: Appl Environ Microbiol Date: 2018-08-01 Impact factor: 4.792
Authors: Timothy J Wade; Elizabeth Sams; Kristen P Brenner; Richard Haugland; Eunice Chern; Michael Beach; Larry Wymer; Clifford C Rankin; David Love; Quanlin Li; Rachel Noble; Alfred P Dufour Journal: Environ Health Date: 2010-10-31 Impact factor: 5.984