2011
DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2010.09.026
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Lack of correlation between enterococcal counts and the presence of human specific fecal markers in Mississippi creek and coastal waters

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
10
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 20 publications
(16 citation statements)
references
References 20 publications
2
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Coastal and tidally influenced creek waters in Mississippi were collected over a 2-year period and assessed for the presence of HF183 and the M. smithii nifH gene by end-point PCR, as well as enterococci concentrations by membrane filtration (Flood et al, 2011). Neither HAM correlated with enterococci concentrations.…”
Section: Multiple Targets For Markers Of Human Fecal Sourcesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Coastal and tidally influenced creek waters in Mississippi were collected over a 2-year period and assessed for the presence of HF183 and the M. smithii nifH gene by end-point PCR, as well as enterococci concentrations by membrane filtration (Flood et al, 2011). Neither HAM correlated with enterococci concentrations.…”
Section: Multiple Targets For Markers Of Human Fecal Sourcesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Landscape factors within the watershed can influence fecal indicator bacteria concentrations in source waters and at beaches, e.g. forested headwaters can be a source of fecal indicator bacteria to bathing waters downstream in subtropical and temperate environments (Byappanahalli et al 2003a; Dunkell et al 2011; Flood et al 2011; Frenzel and Couvillion 2002; Fujioka et al 1988; Mallin et al 2000; Whitman et al 2006). Several studies have shown that the degree of urbanization within a watershed is the strongest predictor of fecal indicator abundance, although not necessarily indicative of human fecal pollution (Flood et al 2011), because impervious surfaces can concentrate runoff laden with fecal indicators from numerous sources.…”
Section: Sand Microbial Communitiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This 3rd limitation of CE, that the technique is still under development and validation, may be the reason that most CE‐based diagnostic methods are not yet widely applied. The 4th and 5th limitations of CE are that the equipment and reagents required for CE are relatively more expensive than those required for other techniques (Flood and others ; Pang and others ; Shang and others ), such as CE cost more in equipment than agarose gel electrophoresis for DNA analysis (Flood and others ), HRM can be performed with simpler equipment than that required for CE, thus reducing analytical expenditure (Pang and others ) and developing sequencing gel electrophoresis to reduce high expenses of CE from high‐price detection instrument (Shang and others ). CE requires professional hardware and software, as well as substantial user training (Garino and others ).…”
Section: Limitations Advantages and Future Development Of Ce‐based mentioning
confidence: 99%