4.8 Article

Determining Hot Spots of Fecal Contamination in a Tropical Watershed by Combining Land-Use Information and Meteorological Data with Source-Specific Assays

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
Volume 47, Issue 11, Pages 5794-5802

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/es304066z

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, through its Office of Research and Development
  2. National Research Council

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The objective of this study was to combine knowledge of environmental, topographical, meteorological, and anthropologic factors in the Rio Grande de Arecibo (RGA) watershed in Puerto Rico with information provided by microbial source tracking (MST) to map hot spots (i.e., likely sources) of fecal contamination. Water samples were tested for the presence of human and bovine fecal contamination in addition to fecal indicator bacteria and correlated against several land uses and the density of septic tanks, sewers, and latrines. Specifically, human sources were positively correlated with developed (r = 0.68), barren land uses (r = 0.84), density of septic tanks (r = 0.78), slope (r = 0.63), and the proximity to wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) (r = 0.82). Agricultural land, the number of upstream National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) facilities, and density of latrines were positively associated with the bovine marker (r = 0.71; r = 0.74; and r = 0.68, respectively). Using this information, we provided a hot spot , which shows areas that should be closely monitored for fecal contamination in the RGA watershed. The results indicated that additional bovine assays are needed in tropical regions. We concluded that meteorological, topographical, anthropogenic and land cover data are needed to evaluate and verify the performance of MST assays and, therefore, to identify important sources of fecal contamination to environmental waters

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