4.1 Article

Combining targeted sampling and fluorometry to identify human fecal contamination in a freshwater creek

Journal

JOURNAL OF WATER AND HEALTH
Volume 6, Issue 1, Pages 105-116

Publisher

IWA PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.2166/wh.2007.004

Keywords

bacterial source tracking; Escherichia coli; fluorescent whitening agents; microbial source tracking; optical brighteners; organic matter

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Many bacterial source tracking (BST) methods are too expensive for most communities to afford. In an effort to develop an inexpensive method of detecting human sources of fecal contamination in a freshwater creek during baseflow and stormflow conditions, we combined targeted sampling with fluorometry. Targeted sampling is a prelude to BST and finds sources of fecal contamination by continued sampling and resampling over ever-decreasing distances. Fluorometry identifies human fecal contamination in water by detecting fluorescing compounds, optical brighteners, from laundry detergents. Potato Creek, a freshwater creek in Georgia (U.S.A.), had three reaches identified as containing high numbers of fecal bacteria, and these reaches were sampled by targeted sampling and fluorometry. Targeted sampling quickly and inexpensively identified humans, cattle, and dogs as the major sources of fecal contamination in the first, second, and third reaches, respectively. Fluorometric values were consistent with these identifications, but high fluorometric values were sometimes observed in areas with no fecal contamination. One likely cause of these false-positive signals was fluorescence from organic matter. For targeted sampling, the cost of each sample was $6, with a one-time equipment cost of $3,650; for fluorometry, the cost of each sample was negligible, with a one-time equipment cost of $14,250. This was the first study of this relatively inexpensive combination in freshwater during both baseflow and stormflow conditions.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available