4.8 Article

Escherichia coli and Enterococcus spp. in Rainwater Tank Samples: Comparison of Culture-Based Methods and 235 rRNA Gene Quantitative PCR Assays

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
Volume 46, Issue 20, Pages 11370-11376

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/es302222b

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Queensland government
  2. CSIRO
  3. University of Queensland
  4. Griffith University

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this study, culture-based methods and quantitative PCR (qPCR) assays were compared with each other for the measurement of Escherichia coli and Enterococcus spp. in water samples collected from rainwater tanks in Southeast Queensland, Australia. Among the 50 rainwater tank samples tested, 26 (52%) and 46 (92%) samples yielded E. coli numbers as measured by EPA Method 1603 and E. coli 23S rRNA gene qPCR assay, respectively. Similarly, 49 (98%) and 47 (94%) samples yielded Enterococcus spp. numbers as measured by EPA Method 1600 and Enterococcus spp. 23S rRNA gene qPCR assay, respectively. The mean E. coli (2.49 +/- 0.85) log(10) and Enterococcus spp. (2.72 +/- 0.32) log(10) numbers as measured by qPCR assays were significantly (P < 0001) different than E. coli (0.91 +/- 0.80) log(10) and Enterococcus spp. (1.86 +/- 0.60) log(10) numbers as measured by culture-based method. Weak but significant correlations were observed between both EPA Method 1603 and the E. coli qPCR assay (r = 0.47, P = 0.0009), and EPA Method 1600 and the Enterococcus spp. qPCR assay (r = 0.42, P = 0.002). Good qualitative agreement was found between the culture-based method and the Enterococcus spp. qPCR assay in terms of detecting fecal pollution in water samples from the studied rainwater tanks. More research studies, however, are needed to shed some light on the discrepancies associated with the culture-based methods and qPCR assays for measuring fecal indicator bacteria.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available