Performance of forty-one microbial source tracking methods: A twenty-seven lab evaluation study

Boehm, Alexandria B.; Werfhorst, Laurie C. Van De; Griffith, John F.; Holden, Patricia A.; Jay, Jenny; Shanks, Orin C.; Wang, Dan; Weisberg, Stephen B.

doi:10.1016/j.watres.2012.12.046

Cited by 266 publications

(302 citation statements)

References 62 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

288

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Figure 1 shows the overall host sensitivity values for each human Bacteroides 16S rRNA and non-16S rRNA markers. Currently, there is no universal benchmark for a host sensitivity measure of a marker, but a sensitivity value >80% is generally considered acceptable [48]. A marker with sensitivity values of <80% may still be useful if the specificity value is >90%.…”

Section: Host Sensitivitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The more, the better, however: the U.S. EPA MST guide document [60] recommends that at least 10 animals per host type should be screened for specificity. Currently, there is no benchmark for a host specificity measure of a marker, but a specificity value >80% has been used as a benchmark and >90% is excellent [48,60].…”

Section: Host Specificitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A multi-laboratory study tested a variety of MST assays against samples blinded to the testing laboratories that were spiked with fresh feces from animals and/or human feces, sewage, or septic system effluent [48]. Samples contained a single source (singleton) or two sources of waste (doubletons).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This dichotomy was consistent across the methods for which the comparison could be made. The series of studies used a benchmark of 80% sensitivity and 80% specificity for adequate method performance [48]. HF183 TaqMan ® normalized to 1 ng total DNA consistently exceeded the benchmarks, and was designated the best-performing method in the study.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Current Status of Marker Genes of Bacteroides and Related Taxa for Identifying Sewage Pollution in Environmental Waters

Ahmed

Hughes

Harwood

2016

Water

114

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Microbial source tracking (MST) endeavors to determine sources of fecal pollution in environmental waters by capitalizing on the association of certain microorganisms with the gastrointestinal tract and feces of specific animal groups. Several decades of research have shown that bacteria belonging to the gut-associated order Bacteroidales, and particularly the genus Bacteroides, tend to co-evolve with the host, and are, therefore, particularly suitable candidates for MST applications. This review summarizes the current research on MST methods that employ genes belonging to Bacteroidales/Bacteroides as tracers or "markers" of sewage pollution, including known advantages and deficiencies of the many polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based methods that have been published since 2000. Host specificity is a paramount criterion for confidence that detection of a marker is a true indicator of the target host. Host sensitivity, or the prevalence of the marker in feces/waste from the target host, is necessary for confidence that absence of the marker is indicative of the absence of the pollution source. Each of these parameters can vary widely depending on the type of waste assessed and the geographic location. Differential decay characteristics of bacterial targets and their associated DNA contribute to challenges in interpreting MST results in the context of human health risks. The HF183 marker, derived from the 16S rRNA gene of Bacteroides dorei and closely related taxa, has been used for almost two decades in MST studies, and is well characterized regarding host sensitivity and specificity, and in prevalence and concentration in sewage in many countries. Other markers such as HumM2 and HumM3 show promise, but require further performance testing to demonstrate their widespread utility. An important limitation of the one-marker-one-assay approach commonly used for MST is that given the complexities of microbial persistence in environmental waters, and the methodological challenges of quantitative PCR (qPCR) in such samples, the absence of a given marker does not ensure the absence of fecal pollution in the source water. Approaches under development, such as microarray and community analysis, have the potential to improve MST practices, thereby increasing our ability to protect human and ecosystem health.

show abstract

Section: Host Sensitivitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Host Specificitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Current Status of Marker Genes of Bacteroides and Related Taxa for Identifying Sewage Pollution in Environmental Waters

Ahmed

Hughes

Harwood

2016

Water

114

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Moreover, as PCR-based technology offers many advantages over culture-based methods for ambient water quality monitoring [116], PCR-based methods are now allowed to be used in routine water quality monitoring [28] and are indeed the recommended [117], if not only option (e.g., norovirus) for evaluation of certain microbial contaminants in stormwater. The ability of these methods to analyze, in high throughput, archived samples, simplifies logistics during short-term but often intensive storm studies, allowing flexible and extensive monitoring practices to become a standard part of performance assessment.…”

Section: Summary and Future Research Needsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Indicator and Pathogen Removal by Low Impact Development Best Management Practices

Peng¹,

Cao

Rippy

et al. 2016

Water

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Microbial contamination in urban stormwater is one of the most widespread and challenging water quality issues in developed countries. Low impact development (LID) best management practices (BMPs) restore pre-urban hydrology by treating and/or harvesting urban runoff and stormwater, and can be designed to remove many contaminants including pathogens. One particular type of LID BMP, stormwater biofilters (i.e., vegetated media filters, also known as bioinfiltration, bioretention, or rain gardens), is becoming increasingly popular in urban environments due to its multiple co-benefits (e.g., improved hydrology, water quality, local climate and aesthetics). However, increased understanding of the factors influencing microbial removal in biofilters is needed to effectively design and implement biofilters for microbial water quality improvement. This paper aims to provide a holistic view of microbial removal in biofilter systems, and reviews the effects of various design choices such as filter media, vegetation, infauna, submerged zones, and hydraulic retention time on microbial removal. Limitations in current knowledge and recommendations for future research are also discussed.

show abstract

Analytical Methods and the QMRA Framework

Haas¹,

Rose²,

Gerba³

2014

Quantitative Microbial Risk Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Performance of forty-one microbial source tracking methods: A twenty-seven lab evaluation study

Cited by 266 publications

References 62 publications

Current Status of Marker Genes of Bacteroides and Related Taxa for Identifying Sewage Pollution in Environmental Waters

Current Status of Marker Genes of Bacteroides and Related Taxa for Identifying Sewage Pollution in Environmental Waters

Indicator and Pathogen Removal by Low Impact Development Best Management Practices

Analytical Methods and the QMRA Framework

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About