Establishing relative release kinetics of faecal indicator organisms from different faecal matrices

Abstract

IMPF: 01.64 RONO: 2480 6260A laboratory assay for comparative characterization of various faecal matrices with respect to faecal indicator organism (FIO) release using artificial rain water. Fresh sheep and beef-cattle faeces, dairy cattle slurry and beef cattle farm yard manure (FYM) were collected from commercial units in south-west England and applied to 20 randomized 1 m2 plots established on permanent grassland. Representative samples from each faecal matrix (n=5) were collected on four occasions over 16 days. One gram of each sample was transferred to a sterile vial to which 9 ml of standard local rain was carefully pipetted. The vial was then rotated through 360 degrees, 20 times in 60 seconds to simulate a standardized interaction of the faecal material with rainfall, providing an assay of comparative release potential. Appropriate decimal dilutions were prepared from the eluent. Following agitation, with a sterile spatula, the remaining faecal material and eluent in the vials were vortex mixed for 60 seconds before decimal dilutions were prepared from the resulting mixture, providing a quantitative assessment of the total FIO in the sample from which percentage release could be determined. Bacterial concentrations were enumerated in duplicate by membrane filtration following standard methods for FIO. Significant differences in release kinetics of Escherichia coli and enterococci from each of the faecal matrices were determined. Differences in release from each faecal substrate and between FIO type (E. coli and intestinal enterococci) were observed in this laboratory study. The order of release of E. coli from the faecal matrices (greatest to least, expressed as a percentage of the total present) was dairy cattle slurry gt than beef cattle FYM gt than beef-cattle faeces gt than sheep faeces. For intestinal enterococci the order of percentage release was dairy cattle slurry gt than beef-cattle faeces gt than beef cattle FYM gt than sheep faeces. This laboratory-based method provides the first data on the relative release kinetics of FIO from different faecal matrices in rain water. This is fundamental information needed to parameterize laboratory-based microbial models and inform approaches to field and catchment risk assessment.Peer reviewe

Manure as a Source of Antibiotic-Resistant Escherichia coli and Enterococci: a Case Study of a Wisconsin, USA Family Dairy Farm

“…The observed E. coli and enterococci densities were comparable to many previously reported values which suggested 10 5 -10 8 fecal organisms per gram of animal waste (Arthurs et al 2001;Diez-Gonzalez et al 2000;Duriez and Topp 2007;Haack and Andrews 2000;Hodgson et al 2009;Meals and Braun 2006;Reddy et al 1981;Sinton et al 2007). The review of Reddy et al (1981) estimated that the average density of fecal coliform was within the range of 10 5 -10 8 /g.…”

“…The bars represent standard deviation of triplicate samples of antibiotic-resistant E. coli and enterococci. Experimental evidence suggested that bacteria such as E. coli and enterococci are readily leachable from manure, and improper management of manure could thus lead to contamination of surface and ground waters which are used for water supply, irrigation, and recreational purposes (Anderson and Sobsey 2006;Hodgson et al 2009;Sapkota et al 2007). …”

Estimated human health risks from recreational exposures to stormwater runoff containing animal faecal material

“…Modelling of runoff and stormwater contamination is a welldocumented research activity (e.g., (Bhattarai et al, 2011;Burian et al, 2001;Kara et al, 2012;Liu, 1994;L opez-Vicente et al, 2014;Luna et al, 2006;May and Sivakumar, 2009;Vezzaro and Mikkelsen, 2012;Vezzaro et al, 2014;Whelan et al, 2014)) Prior studies of pathogen and indicator mobilisation via overland flow from land applied manures have explored the influence that numerous factors have on mobilisation (Cardoso et al, 2012;Ferguson et al, 2007;Muirhead et al, 2006;Stout et al, 2005). Those factors include manure type and method of land application (e.g., Hodgson et al, 2009;Miller and Beasley, 2008;Ramirez et al, 2009;Saini et al, 2003;Thurston-Enriquez et al, 2005), slope and ground cover (e.g., Cardoso et al, 2012;Davies et al, 2004;Ferguson et al, 2007;Hodgson et al, 2009;Miller and Beasley, 2008;Stout et al, 2005;Thurston-Enriquez et al, 2005;Trask et al, 2004;Winkworth et al, 2008;Yeghiazarian et al, 2004), rainfall intensity and antecedent soil moisture (Bradford and Schijven, 2002;Davies et al, 2004;Ramirez et al, 2009;Saini et al, 2003;Schijven et al, 2004;Sistani et al, 2009;Yeghiazarian et al, 2004), and chemical properties (e.g., …”

“…Those factors include manure type and method of land application (e.g., Hodgson et al, 2009;Miller and Beasley, 2008;Ramirez et al, 2009;Saini et al, 2003;Thurston-Enriquez et al, 2005), slope and ground cover (e.g., Cardoso et al, 2012;Davies et al, 2004;Ferguson et al, 2007;Hodgson et al, 2009;Miller and Beasley, 2008;Stout et al, 2005;Thurston-Enriquez et al, 2005;Trask et al, 2004;Winkworth et al, 2008;Yeghiazarian et al, 2004), rainfall intensity and antecedent soil moisture (Bradford and Schijven, 2002;Davies et al, 2004;Ramirez et al, 2009;Saini et al, 2003;Schijven et al, 2004;Sistani et al, 2009;Yeghiazarian et al, 2004), and chemical properties (e.g., Bradford and Schijven, 2002;Davies et al, 2004). Not surprisingly, mobilisation fractions (i.e., proportion of organisms in land-applied manures that are mobilised during a rain event) reported in the literature vary widely (Hodgson et al, 2009;Stout et al, 2005;Trask et al, 2004). Hence, rather than exploring all the conditions and factors described above, we conducted a series of pilot-scale experiments to characterize mobilisation of indicator organism and zoonotic pathogens from an intense rainfall event for one pasture condition.…”

Effects of seasonal meteorological variables on E. coli persistence in livestock faeces and implications for environmental and human health

“…The notable difference recorded during summer 2012 that might help explain the lack of observed regrowth was the amount (and patterns of distribution) of daily rainfall. This was far higher than that experienced in 2013 and most likely led to the detachment of organic material and associated cells from the faecal pats through processes of raindrop impact and subsequent mobilisation and wash-out of E. coli from the faeces into the surrounding environment1127.…”