Choices in Recreational Water Quality Monitoring: New Opportunities and Health Risk Trade-Offs

Nevers, Meredith B.; Byappanahalli, Muruleedhara N.; Whitman, Richard L.

doi:10.1021/es304408y

Cited by 15 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 37 publications

(96 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A recent multi-site study in which 367 river samples were analyzed by E. coli culture (immediately) and enterococci qPCR (after freezing and storage) found comparable frequencies of BAV exceedance between the Day0 results of generated by the two methods [13]. At some of the same beaches that we studied (but several years earlier), qPCR BAV exceedance was less common than the E. coli culture BAV exceedance, consistent with our findings [30]. By contrast, in three beaches on an inland lake in Ohio, USA, the E. coli BAV was exceeded 24% of 59 samples, while the enterococci qPCR BAV was exceeded in 100% of 49 samples [29].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

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

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe United States Environmental Protection Agency has established methods for testing beach water using the rapid quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) method, as well as “beach action values” so that the results of such testing can be used to make same-day beach management decisions. Despite its numerous advantages over culture-based monitoring approaches, qPCR monitoring has yet to become widely used in the US or elsewhere. Considering qPCR results obtained on a given day as the best available measure of that day’s water quality, we evaluated the frequency of correct vs. incorrect beach management decisions that are driven by culture testing.MethodsBeaches in Chicago, USA, were monitored using E. coli culture and enterococci qPCR methods over 894 beach-days in the summers of 2015 and 2016. Agreement in beach management using the two methods, after taking into account agreement due to chance, was summarized using Cohen’s kappa statistic.ResultsNo meaningful agreement (beyond that expected by chance) was observed between beach management actions driven by the two pieces of information available to beach managers on a given day: enterococci qPCR results ofsamples collected that morning and E. coli culture results of samples collected the previous day. The E. coli culture beach action value was exceeded 3.4 times more frequently than the enterococci qPCR beach action value (22.6 vs. 6.6% of beach-days).ConclusionsThe largest evaluation of qPCR-based beach monitoring to date provides little scientific rationale for continued E. coli culture testing of beach water in our setting. The observation that the E. coli culture beach action value was exceeded three times as frequently as the enterococci qPCR beach action value suggests that, although the beach action values for bacteria using different measurement methods are thought to provide comparable information about health risk, this does not appear to be the case in all settings.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

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

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A recent study also reported less frequent beach posting based on qPCR BAV than based on culture BAV, and the authors attributed such discrepancy to the fact that the published BAVs were derived from epidemiology studies at point source impacted beaches and may not perform well at sites with diffusive sources of Enterococcus (Nevers et al . ). Site‐specific conditions related to fate and transport of the source, prevalence of PCR‐inhibitory compounds (Noble et al .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Using these BAVs (70 colony-forming unit by EPA 1600 or 1000 calibrator cell equivalent by ddCt Taqman qPCR per 100 ml of water), we found that overall agreement on management decisions between culture and qPCR improved to over 92%, but qPCR results were much less likely to indicate a beach posting than EPA 1600 (Table 7). A recent study also reported less frequent beach posting based on qPCR BAV than based on culture BAV, and the authors attributed such discrepancy to the fact that the published BAVs were derived from epidemiology studies at point source impacted beaches and may not perform well at sites with diffusive sources of Enterococcus (Nevers et al 2013). Site-specific conditions related to fate and transport of the source, prevalence of PCR-inhibitory compounds (Noble et al 2010) and robustness of the chosen qPCR method against inhibition (Cao et al 2012) can also affect the culture-vs-qPCR difference.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Factors affecting the relationship between quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) and culture-based enumeration of Enterococcus in environmental waters

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims: To determine the extent to which discrepancies between qPCR and culture-based results in beach water quality monitoring can be attributed to: (i) within-method variability, (ii) between-method difference within each method class (qPCR or culture) and (iii) between-class difference. Methods and Results: We analysed 306 samples using two culture-based (EPA1600 and Enterolert) and two qPCR (Taqman and Scorpion) methods, each in duplicate. Both qPCR methods correlated with EPA1600, but regression analyses indicated approximately 0Á8 log 10 unit overestimation by qPCR compared to culture methods. Differences between methods within a class were less than half of this and were minimal for between-replicate within a method. Using the 104 Enterococcus per 100 ml management decision threshold, Taqman qPCR indicated the same decisions as EPA1600 for 87% of the samples, but indicated beach posting for unhealthful water when EPA1600 did not for 12% of the samples. After accounting for within-method and within-class variability, 8% of the samples exhibited true between-class discrepancy where both qPCR methods indicated beach posting while both culture methods did not. Conclusion: Measurement target difference (DNA vs growth) accounted for the majority of the qPCR-vs-culture discrepancy, but its influence on monitoring application is outweighed by frequent incorrect posting with culture methods due to incubation time delay. Significance and Impact of the Study: This is the first study to quantify the frequency with which culture-vs-qPCR discrepancies can be attributed to target difference -vs -method variability.

show abstract

“…3); the three ENT qPCR exceedances matched with ENT MF exceedances. While some studies have found similar RWQC exceedance results (Nevers et al, 2013), other researchers have found that ENT qPCR yielded more exceedances compared with ENT MF (Ferretti et al, 2013;Raith et al, 2014). There are significant advantages with the qPCR method, especially (i) reducing the time lag between sample collection and implementing management options and (ii) the confidence that qPCR results are equally effective predictors of gastrointestinal illnesses (Wade et al, 2008).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Real‐Time Water Quality Monitoring at a Great Lakes National Park

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) was used by the USEPA to establish new recreational water quality criteria in 2012 using the indicator bacteria enterococci. The application of this method has been limited, but resource managers are interested in more timely monitoring results. In this study, we evaluated the efficacy of qPCR as a rapid, alternative method to the time‐consuming membrane filtration (MF) method for monitoring water at select beaches and rivers of Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore in Empire, MI. Water samples were collected from four locations (Esch Road Beach, Otter Creek, Platte Point Bay, and Platte River outlet) in 2014 and analyzed for culture‐based (MF) and non‐culture‐based (i.e., qPCR) endpoints using Escherichia coli and enterococci bacteria. The MF and qPCR enterococci results were significantly, positively correlated overall (r = 0.686, p < 0.0001, n = 98) and at individual locations as well, except at the Platte River outlet location: Esch Road Beach (r = 0.441, p = 0.031, n = 24), Otter Creek (r = 0.592, p = 0.002, n = 24), and Platte Point Bay (r = 0.571, p = 0.004, n = 24). Similarly, E. coli MF and qPCR results were significantly, positively correlated (r = 0.469, p < 0.0001, n = 95), overall but not at individual locations. Water quality standard exceedances based on enterococci levels by qPCR were lower than by MF method: 3 and 16, respectively. Based on our findings, we conclude that qPCR may be a viable alternative to the culture‐based method for monitoring water quality on public lands. Rapid, same‐day results are achievable by the qPCR method, which greatly improves protection of the public from water‐related illnesses. Core Ideas Genomic methods are increasingly used in environmental monitoring programs. qPCR provides timely water quality results at a national park. Culture‐based and qPCR results were correlated. qPCR results (enterococci) yielded fewer beach advisories.

show abstract

Choices in Recreational Water Quality Monitoring: New Opportunities and Health Risk Trade-Offs

Cited by 15 publications

References 37 publications

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

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

Factors affecting the relationship between quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) and culture-based enumeration of Enterococcus in environmental waters

Real‐Time Water Quality Monitoring at a Great Lakes National Park

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About