4.6 Article

Correlation of Quantitative PCR for a Poultry-Specific Brevibacterium Marker Gene with Bacterial and Chemical Indicators of Water Pollution in a Watershed Impacted by Land Application of Poultry Litter

期刊

APPLIED AND ENVIRONMENTAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 77, 期 6, 页码 2094-2102

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/AEM.02555-10

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The impact of fecal contamination from human and agricultural animal waste on water quality is a major public health concern. Identification of the dominant source(s) of fecal pollution in a watershed is necessary for assessing the safety of recreational water and protecting water resources. A field study was conducted using quantitative PCR (qPCR) for the 16S rRNA gene of Brevibacterium sp. LA35 to track feces-contaminated poultry litter in environmental samples. Based on sensitivity and specificity characteristics of the qPCR method, the Bayesian conditional probability that detection of the LA35 marker gene in a water sample represented a true-positive result was 93%. The marker's covariance with fecal indicator bacteria (FIB) and metals associated with poultry litter was also assessed in litter, runoff, surface water, and groundwater samples. LA35 was detected in water and soil samples collected throughout the watershed, and its concentration covaried with concentrations of Escherichia coli, enterococci, As, Cu, P, and Zn. Significantly greater concentrations of FIB, As, Cu, P, and Zn were observed in edge-of-field runoff samples in which LA35 was detected, compared to samples in which it was not detected. Furthermore, As, Cu, P, and Zn concentrations covaried in environmental samples in which LA35 was detected and typically did not in samples in which the marker gene was not detected. The covariance of the poultry-specific LA35 marker gene with these known contaminants from poultry feces provides further evidence that it is a useful tool for assessing the impact of poultry-derived fecal pollution in environmental waters.

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

4.6
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