4.4 Article

Evaluating the Occurrence of Host-Specific Bacteroidales, General Fecal Indicators, and Bacterial Pathogens in a Mixed-Use Watershed

期刊

JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
卷 42, 期 3, 页码 713-725

出版社

AMER SOC AGRONOMY
DOI: 10.2134/jeq2012.0359

关键词

-

资金

  1. Office of Extramural Programs of the USDA-CSREES
  2. Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center-The Ohio State University, Wooster, OH

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Fecal contamination of water is very common, and, in the United States, prevention is complicated by the colossal span of waterways (>3.5 million miles), heterogeneous sources of pollution, and competing interests in water monitoring. The focus of this study was the Upper Sugar Creek Watershed, a mixed-use watershed with many headwater streams and one of the most contaminated waterways in Ohio. Quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) and host-specific PCR for Bacteroidales were evaluated for the potential to discern sources of fecal contamination. Pathogen-specific qPCR and culturable Escherichia coli by most probable number (MPN) were compared at 21 established water quality monitoring sites in the watershed headwaters. Lower numbers of ruminant-specific Bacteroidales markers were detected in the base flow water samples compared with the human-specific Bacteroidales marker, suggesting the presence of hotspots of human fecal contamination. Bacteroidales qPCR and E. coli MPN showed significant correlation (R-2 = 0.57; P < 0.001). Correlation between general fecal indicator and pathogen concentrations was weak or nonexistent. Coexistence of Salmonella and human-specific Bacteroidales was common (P = 0.015). Bacteroidales qPCR may have a greater potential for predicting fecal contamination due to its sensitivity, rapid analysis, and availability of host- specific assays. However, the lack of a strong correlation between pathogens and general fecal indicators suggests that assessment of health risk associated with fecal contamination will require a complement of approaches.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据