Suppr超能文献

采用物理、基于培养和实时定量 PCR 方法对人源和其他动物源粪便浓度进行特征描述。

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

机构信息

Earth Research Institute and Bren School of Environmental Science & Management, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106, USA.

出版信息

Water Res. 2013 Nov 15;47(18):6873-82. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2013.02.060. Epub 2013 Jul 5.

Abstract

The characteristics of fecal sources, and the ways in which they are measured, can profoundly influence the interpretation of which sources are contaminating a body of water. Although feces from various hosts are known to differ in mass and composition, it is not well understood how those differences compare across fecal sources and how differences depend on characterization methods. This study investigated how nine different fecal characterization methods provide different measures of fecal concentration in water, and how results varied across twelve different fecal pollution sources. Sources investigated included chicken, cow, deer, dog, goose, gull, horse, human, pig, pigeon, septage and sewage. A composite fecal slurry was prepared for each source by mixing feces from 6 to 22 individual samples with artificial freshwater. Fecal concentrations were estimated by physical (wet fecal mass added and total DNA mass extracted), culture-based (Escherichia coli and enterococci by membrane filtration and defined substrate), and quantitative real-time PCR (Bacteroidales, E. coli, and enterococci) characterization methods. The characteristics of each composite fecal slurry and the relationships between physical, culture-based and qPCR-based characteristics varied within and among different fecal sources. An in silico exercise was performed to assess how different characterization methods can impact identification of the dominant fecal pollution source in a mixed source sample. A comparison of simulated 10:90 mixtures based on enterococci by defined substrate predicted a source reversal in 27% of all possible combinations, while mixtures based on E. coli membrane filtration resulted in a reversal 29% of the time. This potential for disagreement in minor or dominant source identification based on different methods of measurement represents an important challenge for water quality managers and researchers.

摘要

粪便来源的特征及其测量方法会极大地影响对污染水体的来源的解释。尽管来自不同宿主的粪便在质量和组成上存在差异,但人们对这些差异如何在粪便来源之间进行比较以及差异如何取决于特征描述方法还了解甚少。本研究调查了 9 种不同的粪便特征描述方法如何为水中的粪便浓度提供不同的度量,以及 12 种不同的粪便污染源的结果如何变化。研究的来源包括鸡、牛、鹿、狗、鹅、海鸥、马、人、猪、鸽子、化粪池和污水。通过将 6 至 22 个个体样本的粪便混合,为每个来源制备了一种复合粪便浆。通过物理(湿粪便质量添加和总 DNA 质量提取)、基于培养(膜过滤和定义底物的大肠杆菌和肠球菌)和定量实时 PCR(拟杆菌门、大肠杆菌和肠球菌)特征描述方法来估计粪便浓度。每个复合粪便浆的特征以及物理、基于培养和 qPCR 特征之间的关系在不同的粪便来源内和之间都有所不同。进行了一项计算机模拟练习,以评估不同的特征描述方法如何影响混合来源样本中主要粪便污染源的识别。基于定义底物的 enterococci 的模拟 10:90 混合物的比较预测,在所有可能的组合中,有 27%的组合会出现来源逆转,而基于 E. coli 膜过滤的混合物有 29%的组合会出现逆转。这种基于不同测量方法的次要或主要来源识别的不一致的可能性,是对水质管理者和研究人员的一个重要挑战。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验