Characterization of fecal concentrations in human and other animal sources by physical, culture-based, and quantitative real-time PCR methods

Performance of human fecal anaerobe-associated PCR-based assays in a multi-laboratory method evaluation study

“…The fecal source characterizations presented in Ervin et al (2013) were used for wet mass, Enterococcus CFU, E. coli CFU, and E. coli 23S qPCR. Total DNA mass data were obtained from the laboratories: a majority (13 of 17) measured total DNA concentrations on each filter with a NanoDrop spectrophotometer.…”

Comparison of PCR and quantitative real-time PCR methods for the characterization of ruminant and cattle fecal pollution sources

“…The concentration of fecal material in reference samples used in this study spanned over five orders of magnitude based on enterococci MPN concentration estimates Ervin et al, 2013). The notion that there could be a 100,000 times higher concentration of fecal material representative of one animal source compared to another confounds the ability to assess method performance without first normalizing reported results.…”

Comparative decay of Catellicoccus marimmalium and enterococci in beach sand and seawater

“…For example, a study in California measured 10 8.4 À 10 8.7 most probable number (MPN) ENT per g gull feces , while a different study near the Great Lakes measured 10 4 À 10 8 colony forming units (CFU) ENT/g (Fogarty et al, 2003). Based on ENT densities in gull feces as reported by Ervin et al (2013), a minute amount of gull feces (4 mg) mixed into 1 L of seawater can result in ENT concentrations well above EPA criteria guidelines for safe swimming.…”