Cargando…

Comparison of somatic and F+ coliphage enumeration methods with large volume surface water samples

Coliphages are alternative fecal indicators that may be suitable surrogates for viral pathogens, but majority of standard detection methods utilize insufficient volumes for routine detection in environmental waters. We compared three somatic and F+ coliphage methods based on a paired measurement fro...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: McMinn, Brian R., Rhodes, Eric R., Huff, Emma M., Wanjugi, Pauline, Ware, Michael M., Nappier, Sharon P., Cyterski, Mike, Shanks, Orin C., Oshima, Kevin, Korajkic, Asja
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7082814/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30096350
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jviromet.2018.08.007
_version_ 1783508420568023040
author McMinn, Brian R.
Rhodes, Eric R.
Huff, Emma M.
Wanjugi, Pauline
Ware, Michael M.
Nappier, Sharon P.
Cyterski, Mike
Shanks, Orin C.
Oshima, Kevin
Korajkic, Asja
author_facet McMinn, Brian R.
Rhodes, Eric R.
Huff, Emma M.
Wanjugi, Pauline
Ware, Michael M.
Nappier, Sharon P.
Cyterski, Mike
Shanks, Orin C.
Oshima, Kevin
Korajkic, Asja
author_sort McMinn, Brian R.
collection PubMed
description Coliphages are alternative fecal indicators that may be suitable surrogates for viral pathogens, but majority of standard detection methods utilize insufficient volumes for routine detection in environmental waters. We compared three somatic and F+ coliphage methods based on a paired measurement from 1 L samples collected from the Great Lakes (n = 74). Methods include: 1) dead-end hollow fiber ultrafilter with single agar layer (D-HFUF-SAL); 2) modified SAL (M-SAL); and 3) direct membrane filtration (DMF) technique. Overall, D-HFUF-SAL outperformed other methods as it yielded the lowest frequency of non-detects [(ND); 10.8%] and the highest average concentrations of recovered coliphage for positive samples (2.51 ± 1.02 [standard deviation, SD] log(10) plaque forming unit/liter (PFU/L) and 0.79 ± 0.71 (SD) log(10) PFU/L for somatic and F+, respectively). M-SAL yielded 29.7% ND and average concentrations of 2.26 ± 1.15 (SD) log(10) PFU/L (somatic) and 0.59 ± 0.82 (SD) log(10) PFU/L (F+ ). DMF performance was inferior to D-HFUF-SAL and M-SAL methods (ND of 65.6%; average somatic coliphage concentration 1.52 ± 1.32 [SD] log10 PFU/L, no F+ detected), indicating this procedure is unsuitable for 1 L surface water sample volumes. This study represents an important step toward the use of a coliphage method for recreational water quality criteria purposes.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7082814
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-70828142020-03-20 Comparison of somatic and F+ coliphage enumeration methods with large volume surface water samples McMinn, Brian R. Rhodes, Eric R. Huff, Emma M. Wanjugi, Pauline Ware, Michael M. Nappier, Sharon P. Cyterski, Mike Shanks, Orin C. Oshima, Kevin Korajkic, Asja J Virol Methods Article Coliphages are alternative fecal indicators that may be suitable surrogates for viral pathogens, but majority of standard detection methods utilize insufficient volumes for routine detection in environmental waters. We compared three somatic and F+ coliphage methods based on a paired measurement from 1 L samples collected from the Great Lakes (n = 74). Methods include: 1) dead-end hollow fiber ultrafilter with single agar layer (D-HFUF-SAL); 2) modified SAL (M-SAL); and 3) direct membrane filtration (DMF) technique. Overall, D-HFUF-SAL outperformed other methods as it yielded the lowest frequency of non-detects [(ND); 10.8%] and the highest average concentrations of recovered coliphage for positive samples (2.51 ± 1.02 [standard deviation, SD] log(10) plaque forming unit/liter (PFU/L) and 0.79 ± 0.71 (SD) log(10) PFU/L for somatic and F+, respectively). M-SAL yielded 29.7% ND and average concentrations of 2.26 ± 1.15 (SD) log(10) PFU/L (somatic) and 0.59 ± 0.82 (SD) log(10) PFU/L (F+ ). DMF performance was inferior to D-HFUF-SAL and M-SAL methods (ND of 65.6%; average somatic coliphage concentration 1.52 ± 1.32 [SD] log10 PFU/L, no F+ detected), indicating this procedure is unsuitable for 1 L surface water sample volumes. This study represents an important step toward the use of a coliphage method for recreational water quality criteria purposes. 2018-08-07 2018-11 /pmc/articles/PMC7082814/ /pubmed/30096350 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jviromet.2018.08.007 Text en https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/BY/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) ).
spellingShingle Article
McMinn, Brian R.
Rhodes, Eric R.
Huff, Emma M.
Wanjugi, Pauline
Ware, Michael M.
Nappier, Sharon P.
Cyterski, Mike
Shanks, Orin C.
Oshima, Kevin
Korajkic, Asja
Comparison of somatic and F+ coliphage enumeration methods with large volume surface water samples
title Comparison of somatic and F+ coliphage enumeration methods with large volume surface water samples
title_full Comparison of somatic and F+ coliphage enumeration methods with large volume surface water samples
title_fullStr Comparison of somatic and F+ coliphage enumeration methods with large volume surface water samples
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of somatic and F+ coliphage enumeration methods with large volume surface water samples
title_short Comparison of somatic and F+ coliphage enumeration methods with large volume surface water samples
title_sort comparison of somatic and f+ coliphage enumeration methods with large volume surface water samples
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7082814/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30096350
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jviromet.2018.08.007
work_keys_str_mv AT mcminnbrianr comparisonofsomaticandfcoliphageenumerationmethodswithlargevolumesurfacewatersamples
AT rhodesericr comparisonofsomaticandfcoliphageenumerationmethodswithlargevolumesurfacewatersamples
AT huffemmam comparisonofsomaticandfcoliphageenumerationmethodswithlargevolumesurfacewatersamples
AT wanjugipauline comparisonofsomaticandfcoliphageenumerationmethodswithlargevolumesurfacewatersamples
AT waremichaelm comparisonofsomaticandfcoliphageenumerationmethodswithlargevolumesurfacewatersamples
AT nappiersharonp comparisonofsomaticandfcoliphageenumerationmethodswithlargevolumesurfacewatersamples
AT cyterskimike comparisonofsomaticandfcoliphageenumerationmethodswithlargevolumesurfacewatersamples
AT shanksorinc comparisonofsomaticandfcoliphageenumerationmethodswithlargevolumesurfacewatersamples
AT oshimakevin comparisonofsomaticandfcoliphageenumerationmethodswithlargevolumesurfacewatersamples
AT korajkicasja comparisonofsomaticandfcoliphageenumerationmethodswithlargevolumesurfacewatersamples