Literature DB >> 25038459

Standardization of enterococci density estimates by EPA qPCR methods and comparison of beach action value exceedances in river waters with culture methods.

Richard A Haugland1, Shawn D Siefring2, Manju Varma2, Alfred P Dufour2, Kristen P Brenner2, Timothy J Wade3, Elizabeth Sams3, Stacey Cochran4, Steve Braun4, Mano Sivaganensan5.   

Abstract

The U.S. EPA has published recommendations for calibrator cell equivalent (CCE) densities of enterococci in recreational waters determined by a qPCR method in its 2012 recreational water quality criteria (RWQC). The CCE quantification unit stems from the calibration model used to estimate enterococci densities in recreational beach waters in the EPA National Epidemiological and Environmental Assessment of Recreational (NEEAR) Water Study and directly informed the derivation of the RWQC recommendations. Recent studies have demonstrated that CCE estimates from the method can vary when using different cultured Enterococcus cell preparations in calibrator samples. These differences have been attributed to differences in the quantities of targeted gene copies (target sequences) that are recovered per nominal calibrator cell by DNA extraction. Standardization of results from the calibration model will require the estimation of target sequence recoveries from the calibrator and water samples. In addition, comparisons of water sample results with the RWQC values will require a knowledge of target sequence recoveries from the NEEAR study calibrator samples. In this study recoveries of target sequences and the mean target sequence/cell ratio for the NEEAR study calibrator samples were retrospectively estimated with a corroborated standard curve. A modification of the calibration model was then used to estimate enterococci target sequence quantities in water samples from eight midwestern U.S. rivers. CCE estimates were obtained by dividing these target sequence quantities by the mean NEEAR study target sequence/cell ratio. This target sequence-based quantification approach resulted in a high degree of agreement in beach action decisions (determinations of whether bacterial fecal indicator densities are above or below RWQC-recommended values) from CCE results of the qPCR method and from culture dependent enumeration of both enterococci and Eschericia coli in the corresponding water samples. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Entities:  

Keywords:  EPA methods; Enterococcus; Recreational water quality criteria; qPCR

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25038459     DOI: 10.1016/j.mimet.2014.07.007

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Microbiol Methods        ISSN: 0167-7012            Impact factor:   2.363


  7 in total

1.  Advancements in mitigating interference in quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) for microbial water quality monitoring.

Authors:  Sharon P Nappier; Audrey Ichida; Kirsten Jaglo; Rich Haugland; Kaedra R Jones
Journal:  Sci Total Environ       Date:  2019-03-16       Impact factor: 7.963

2.  Quantification of plasmid DNA standards for U.S. EPA fecal indicator bacteria qPCR methods by droplet digital PCR analysis.

Authors:  Mano Sivaganesan; Manju Varma; Shawn Siefring; Richard Haugland
Journal:  J Microbiol Methods       Date:  2018-07-11       Impact factor: 2.363

3.  Persistence of fecal indicator bacteria and associated genetic markers from wastewater treatment plant effluents in freshwater microcosms.

Authors:  Eunice C Chern; Larry Wymer; Kristen Brenner; Kevin Oshima; Richard A Haugland
Journal:  J Water Health       Date:  2022-01       Impact factor: 1.744

Review 4.  Microbial Contamination of Drinking Water and Human Health from Community Water Systems.

Authors:  Nicholas J Ashbolt
Journal:  Curr Environ Health Rep       Date:  2015-03

5.  Molecular tools for bathing water assessment in Europe: Balancing social science research with a rapidly developing environmental science evidence-base.

Authors:  David M Oliver; Nick D Hanley; Melanie van Niekerk; David Kay; A Louise Heathwaite; Sharyl J M Rabinovici; Julie L Kinzelman; Lora E Fleming; Jonathan Porter; Sabina Shaikh; Rob Fish; Sue Chilton; Julie Hewitt; Elaine Connolly; Andy Cummins; Klaus Glenk; Calum McPhail; Eric McRory; Alistair McVittie; Amanna Giles; Suzanne Roberts; Katherine Simpson; Dugald Tinch; Ted Thairs; Lisa M Avery; Andy J A Vinten; Bill D Watts; Richard S Quilliam
Journal:  Ambio       Date:  2015-09-21       Impact factor: 5.129

6.  Monitoring urban beaches with qPCR vs. culture measures of fecal indicator bacteria: Implications for public notification.

Authors:  Samuel Dorevitch; Abhilasha Shrestha; Stephanie DeFlorio-Barker; Cathy Breitenbach; Ira Heimler
Journal:  Environ Health       Date:  2017-05-12       Impact factor: 5.984

7.  Evaluation of Techniques for Measuring Microbial Hazards in Bathing Waters: A Comparative Study.

Authors:  Christelle Schang; Rebekah Henry; Peter A Kolotelo; Toby Prosser; Nick Crosbie; Trish Grant; Darren Cottam; Peter O'Brien; Scott Coutts; Ana Deletic; David T McCarthy
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-05-23       Impact factor: 3.240

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.