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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |