4.6 Article

Molecular tools for bathing water assessment in Europe: Balancing social science research with a rapidly developing environmental science evidence-base

Journal

AMBIO
Volume 45, Issue 1, Pages 52-62

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s13280-015-0698-9

Keywords

Bathing Water Directive; Fecal indicator organism; Microbial pollution; Public perception; Recreational water quality; Risk communication

Funding

  1. Natural Environment Research Council as part of the Delivering Healthy Water project [NE/I022191/1]
  2. European Regional Development Fund Programme
  3. European Social Fund Convergence Programme for Cornwall
  4. European Social Fund Convergence Programme for Isles of Scilly
  5. NERC [NE/I022191/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  6. Natural Environment Research Council [ceh010010, NE/I022191/1] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The use of molecular tools, principally qPCR, versus traditional culture-based methods for quantifying microbial parameters (e.g., Fecal Indicator Organisms) in bathing waters generates considerable ongoing debate at the science-policy interface. Advances in science have allowed the development and application of molecular biological methods for rapid (similar to 2 h) quantification of microbial pollution in bathing and recreational waters. In contrast, culture-based methods can take between 18 and 96 h for sample processing. Thus, molecular tools offer an opportunity to provide a more meaningful statement of microbial risk to water-users by providing near-real-time information enabling potentially more informed decision-making with regard to water-based activities. However, complementary studies concerning the potential costs and benefits of adopting rapid methods as a regulatory tool are in short supply. We report on findings from an international Working Group that examined the breadth of social impacts, challenges, and research opportunities associated with the application of molecular tools to bathing water regulations.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available