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...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
2016-01-01
|
| Series: | PLoS ONE |
| Online Access: | https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0155848&type=printable |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1849723593574842368 |
|---|---|
| author | 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 |
| author_facet | 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 |
| author_sort | Christelle Schang |
| collection | DOAJ |
| 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 | Article |
| id | doaj-art-edc8ffb2f0db408aa411847d5fb8f753 |
| institution | DOAJ |
| issn | 1932-6203 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2016-01-01 |
| publisher | Public Library of Science (PLoS) |
| record_format | Article |
| series | PLoS ONE |
| spelling | doaj-art-edc8ffb2f0db408aa411847d5fb8f7532025-08-20T03:10:58ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032016-01-01115e015584810.1371/journal.pone.0155848Evaluation of Techniques for Measuring Microbial Hazards in Bathing Waters: A Comparative Study.Christelle SchangRebekah HenryPeter A KoloteloToby ProsserNick CrosbieTrish GrantDarren CottamPeter O'BrienScott CouttsAna DeleticDavid T McCarthyRecreational 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.https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0155848&type=printable |
| spellingShingle | 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 Evaluation of Techniques for Measuring Microbial Hazards in Bathing Waters: A Comparative Study. PLoS ONE |
| 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 |
| url | https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0155848&type=printable |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT christelleschang evaluationoftechniquesformeasuringmicrobialhazardsinbathingwatersacomparativestudy AT rebekahhenry evaluationoftechniquesformeasuringmicrobialhazardsinbathingwatersacomparativestudy AT peterakolotelo evaluationoftechniquesformeasuringmicrobialhazardsinbathingwatersacomparativestudy AT tobyprosser evaluationoftechniquesformeasuringmicrobialhazardsinbathingwatersacomparativestudy AT nickcrosbie evaluationoftechniquesformeasuringmicrobialhazardsinbathingwatersacomparativestudy AT trishgrant evaluationoftechniquesformeasuringmicrobialhazardsinbathingwatersacomparativestudy AT darrencottam evaluationoftechniquesformeasuringmicrobialhazardsinbathingwatersacomparativestudy AT peterobrien evaluationoftechniquesformeasuringmicrobialhazardsinbathingwatersacomparativestudy AT scottcoutts evaluationoftechniquesformeasuringmicrobialhazardsinbathingwatersacomparativestudy AT anadeletic evaluationoftechniquesformeasuringmicrobialhazardsinbathingwatersacomparativestudy AT davidtmccarthy evaluationoftechniquesformeasuringmicrobialhazardsinbathingwatersacomparativestudy |