4.6 Article

Evaluation of F+ RNA and DNA coliphages as source-specific indicators of fecal contamination in surface waters

期刊

APPLIED AND ENVIRONMENTAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 69, 期 11, 页码 6507-6514

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/AEM.69.11.6507-6514.2003

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIEHS NIH HHS [ES07018, T32 ES007018] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Male-specific (F+) coliphages have been investigated as viral indicators of fecal contamination that may provide source-specific information for impacted environmental waters. This study examined the presence and proportions of the different subgroups of F+ coliphages in a variety of fecal wastes and surface waters with well-defined potential waste impacts. Municipal wastewater samples had high proportions of F+ DNA and group II and III F+ RNA coliphages. Bovine wastewaters also contained a high proportion of F+ DNA coliphages, but group I and IV F+ RNA coliphages predominated. Swine wastewaters contained approximately equal proportions of F+ DNA and RNA coliphages, and group I and III F+ RNA coliphages were most common. Waterfowl (gull and goose) feces contained almost exclusively F+ RNA coliphages of groups I and IV. No F+ coliphages were isolated from the feces of the other species examined. F+ coliphage recovery from surface waters was influenced by precipitation events and animal or human land use. There were no significant differences in coliphage density among land use categories. Significant seasonal variation was observed in the proportions of F+ DNA and RNA coliphages. Group I F+ RNA colliphages were the vast majority (90%) of those recovered from surface waters. The percentage of group I F+ RNA coliphages detected was greatest at background sites, and the percentage of group II F+ RNA colliphages was highest at human-impacted sites. Monitoring of F+ coliphage groups can indicate the presence and major sources of microbial inputs to surface waters, but environmental effects on the relative occurrence of different groups need to be considered.

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