Cargando…

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

Recreational water quality is commonly monitored by means of culture based faecal indicator organism (FIOs) assays. However, these methods are costly and time-consuming; a serious disadvantage when combined with issues such as non-specificity and user bias. New culture and molecular methods have bee...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Schang, Christelle, Henry, Rebekah, Kolotelo, Peter A., Prosser, Toby, Crosbie, Nick, Grant, Trish, Cottam, Darren, O’Brien, Peter, Coutts, Scott, Deletic, Ana, McCarthy, David T.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4877094/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27213772
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0155848
_version_ 1782433330396921856
author Schang, Christelle
Henry, Rebekah
Kolotelo, Peter A.
Prosser, Toby
Crosbie, Nick
Grant, Trish
Cottam, Darren
O’Brien, Peter
Coutts, Scott
Deletic, Ana
McCarthy, David T.
author_facet Schang, Christelle
Henry, Rebekah
Kolotelo, Peter A.
Prosser, Toby
Crosbie, Nick
Grant, Trish
Cottam, Darren
O’Brien, Peter
Coutts, Scott
Deletic, Ana
McCarthy, David T.
author_sort Schang, Christelle
collection PubMed
description Recreational water quality is commonly monitored by means of culture based faecal indicator organism (FIOs) assays. However, these methods are costly and time-consuming; a serious disadvantage when combined with issues such as non-specificity and user bias. New culture and molecular methods have been developed to counter these drawbacks. This study compared industry-standard IDEXX methods (Colilert and Enterolert) with three alternative approaches: 1) TECTA™ system for E. coli and enterococci; 2) US EPA’s 1611 method (qPCR based enterococci enumeration); and 3) Next Generation Sequencing (NGS). Water samples (233) were collected from riverine, estuarine and marine environments over the 2014–2015 summer period and analysed by the four methods. The results demonstrated that E. coli and coliform densities, inferred by the IDEXX system, correlated strongly with the TECTA™ system. The TECTA™ system had further advantages in faster turnaround times (~12 hrs from sample receipt to result compared to 24 hrs); no staff time required for interpretation and less user bias (results are automatically calculated, compared to subjective colorimetric decisions). The US EPA Method 1611 qPCR method also showed significant correlation with the IDEXX enterococci method; but had significant disadvantages such as highly technical analysis and higher operational costs (330% of IDEXX). The NGS method demonstrated statistically significant correlations between IDEXX and the proportions of sequences belonging to FIOs, Enterobacteriaceae, and Enterococcaceae. While costs (3,000% of IDEXX) and analysis time (300% of IDEXX) were found to be significant drawbacks of NGS, rapid technological advances in this field will soon see it widely adopted.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4877094
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-48770942016-06-09 Evaluation of Techniques for Measuring Microbial Hazards in Bathing Waters: A Comparative Study Schang, Christelle Henry, Rebekah Kolotelo, Peter A. Prosser, Toby Crosbie, Nick Grant, Trish Cottam, Darren O’Brien, Peter Coutts, Scott Deletic, Ana McCarthy, David T. PLoS One Research Article Recreational water quality is commonly monitored by means of culture based faecal indicator organism (FIOs) assays. However, these methods are costly and time-consuming; a serious disadvantage when combined with issues such as non-specificity and user bias. New culture and molecular methods have been developed to counter these drawbacks. This study compared industry-standard IDEXX methods (Colilert and Enterolert) with three alternative approaches: 1) TECTA™ system for E. coli and enterococci; 2) US EPA’s 1611 method (qPCR based enterococci enumeration); and 3) Next Generation Sequencing (NGS). Water samples (233) were collected from riverine, estuarine and marine environments over the 2014–2015 summer period and analysed by the four methods. The results demonstrated that E. coli and coliform densities, inferred by the IDEXX system, correlated strongly with the TECTA™ system. The TECTA™ system had further advantages in faster turnaround times (~12 hrs from sample receipt to result compared to 24 hrs); no staff time required for interpretation and less user bias (results are automatically calculated, compared to subjective colorimetric decisions). The US EPA Method 1611 qPCR method also showed significant correlation with the IDEXX enterococci method; but had significant disadvantages such as highly technical analysis and higher operational costs (330% of IDEXX). The NGS method demonstrated statistically significant correlations between IDEXX and the proportions of sequences belonging to FIOs, Enterobacteriaceae, and Enterococcaceae. While costs (3,000% of IDEXX) and analysis time (300% of IDEXX) were found to be significant drawbacks of NGS, rapid technological advances in this field will soon see it widely adopted. Public Library of Science 2016-05-23 /pmc/articles/PMC4877094/ /pubmed/27213772 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0155848 Text en © 2016 Schang et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Schang, Christelle
Henry, Rebekah
Kolotelo, Peter A.
Prosser, Toby
Crosbie, Nick
Grant, Trish
Cottam, Darren
O’Brien, Peter
Coutts, Scott
Deletic, Ana
McCarthy, David T.
Evaluation of Techniques for Measuring Microbial Hazards in Bathing Waters: A Comparative Study
title Evaluation of Techniques for Measuring Microbial Hazards in Bathing Waters: A Comparative Study
title_full Evaluation of Techniques for Measuring Microbial Hazards in Bathing Waters: A Comparative Study
title_fullStr Evaluation of Techniques for Measuring Microbial Hazards in Bathing Waters: A Comparative Study
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of Techniques for Measuring Microbial Hazards in Bathing Waters: A Comparative Study
title_short Evaluation of Techniques for Measuring Microbial Hazards in Bathing Waters: A Comparative Study
title_sort evaluation of techniques for measuring microbial hazards in bathing waters: a comparative study
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4877094/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27213772
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0155848
work_keys_str_mv AT schangchristelle evaluationoftechniquesformeasuringmicrobialhazardsinbathingwatersacomparativestudy
AT henryrebekah evaluationoftechniquesformeasuringmicrobialhazardsinbathingwatersacomparativestudy
AT kolotelopetera evaluationoftechniquesformeasuringmicrobialhazardsinbathingwatersacomparativestudy
AT prossertoby evaluationoftechniquesformeasuringmicrobialhazardsinbathingwatersacomparativestudy
AT crosbienick evaluationoftechniquesformeasuringmicrobialhazardsinbathingwatersacomparativestudy
AT granttrish evaluationoftechniquesformeasuringmicrobialhazardsinbathingwatersacomparativestudy
AT cottamdarren evaluationoftechniquesformeasuringmicrobialhazardsinbathingwatersacomparativestudy
AT obrienpeter evaluationoftechniquesformeasuringmicrobialhazardsinbathingwatersacomparativestudy
AT couttsscott evaluationoftechniquesformeasuringmicrobialhazardsinbathingwatersacomparativestudy
AT deleticana evaluationoftechniquesformeasuringmicrobialhazardsinbathingwatersacomparativestudy
AT mccarthydavidt evaluationoftechniquesformeasuringmicrobialhazardsinbathingwatersacomparativestudy