4.6 Article

Development and Evaluation of EPA Method 1615 for Detection of Enterovirus and Norovirus in Water

Journal

APPLIED AND ENVIRONMENTAL MICROBIOLOGY
Volume 79, Issue 1, Pages 215-223

Publisher

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/AEM.02270-12

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The U.S. EPA developed a sample concentration and preparation assay in conjunction with the total culturable virus assay for concentrating and measuring culturable viruses in source and drinking waters as part of the Information Collection Rule (ICR) promulgated in 1996. In an effort to improve upon this method, the U. S. EPA recently developed Method 1615: Measurement of Enterovirus and Norovirus Occurrence in Water by Culture and RT-qPCR. Method 1615 uses a culturable virus assay with reduced equipment and labor costs compared to the costs associated with the ICR virus method and introduces a new molecular assay for the detection of enteroviruses and noroviruses by reverse transcription-quantitative PCR. In this study, we describe the optimization of several new components of the molecular assay and examine virus recovery from ground, reagent-grade, and surface water samples seeded with poliovirus type 3 and murine norovirus. For the culturable virus and molecular assays, mean poliovirus recovery using the complete method was 58% and 20% in groundwater samples, 122% and 39% using low-titer spikes in reagent-grade water, 42% and 48% using high-titer spikes in reagent-grade water, and 11% and 10% in surface water with high turbidity, respectively. Murine norovirus recovery by the molecular assay was 30% in groundwater samples, less than 8% in both low-and high-titer spikes in reagent-grade water, and 6% in surface water with high turbidity. This study demonstrates the effectiveness of Method 1615 for use with groundwater samples and highlights the need for further research into its effectiveness with surface water.

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