Suppr超能文献

在 EPA 法规标准框架下对噬菌体检测方法的跨方法评估。

Cross-method assessment of coliphage detection methods in the framework of EPA regulatory standards.

机构信息

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Institute of Marine Sciences, Department of Environmental Sciences and Engineering, Morehead City, NC 28557, USA.

出版信息

Lett Appl Microbiol. 2023 Jul 3;76(7). doi: 10.1093/lambio/ovad081.

Abstract

This study aimed to understand the performance and utility of US EPA-approved coliphage methods in comparison to fecal indicator bacteria (FIB) and molecular microbial source tracking (MST) methods in recreational waters. We used US EPA Method 1642 to quantify concentrations of coliphage along with culture- and molecular-based enumeration of E. coli and Enterococcus sp, and human fecal source marker HF183. We also conducted a feasibility assessment to determine the utility of US EPA Method 1642 for application to routine recreational water monitoring. Ten sampling events were conducted at three sampling sites over the duration of a year. Average concentrations of somatic (SC) (log10 1.48 PFU/100 mL) and male-specific (MSC) coliphages (log10 1.00 PFU/100 mL) at all sites were low with SC found across a broader range (0.3-3.1 log10 PFU/100 mL) of concentrations compared to MSC (non-detect-1.7 log10 PFU/100 mL). A feasibility assessment was conducted across US EPA Method 1642 for coliphage enumeration, culture-based FIB, defined substrate technology (DST) approaches Enterolert™ and Colilert®, and quantitative microbial source tracking (qMST) US EPA Method 1696. US EPA Method 1642 had the longest processing times, but also was moderate in cost, compared to the DST and qMST molecular methods. Given the poor correlations between MSC and SC with FIB and qMST markers in this study and the cumbersome nature of US EPA Method 1642, the method may not be the most applicable method for use in systems impacted predominantly by stormwater and other non-point source pollution. Findings from this study, however, provide guidance on the application of fecal indicator virus in ambient coastal surface waters.

摘要

本研究旨在比较美国环保署(EPA)批准的噬菌体方法与粪便指示菌(FIB)和分子微生物源追踪(MST)方法在娱乐水中的性能和实用性。我们使用美国环保署方法 1642 定量噬菌体浓度,以及基于培养和分子的大肠杆菌和肠球菌 sp 计数,以及人类粪便来源标记物 HF183。我们还进行了可行性评估,以确定美国环保署方法 1642 应用于常规娱乐水监测的实用性。在一年的时间里,在三个采样点进行了十次采样事件。所有地点的体细胞(SC)(log10 1.48 PFU/100 mL)和男性特异性(MSC)噬菌体(log10 1.00 PFU/100 mL)的平均浓度较低,SC 的浓度范围较宽(0.3-3.1 log10 PFU/100 mL),而 MSC 则为非检出-1.7 log10 PFU/100 mL)。对美国环保署方法 1642 进行了噬菌体计数的可行性评估,包括基于培养的 FIB、定义底物技术(DST)方法 Enterolert™ 和 Colilert®,以及定量微生物源追踪(qMST)美国环保署方法 1696。与 DST 和 qMST 分子方法相比,美国环保署方法 1642 的处理时间最长,但成本也适中。鉴于在本研究中 MSC 和 SC 与 FIB 和 qMST 标记物之间的相关性较差,以及美国环保署方法 1642 的繁琐性质,该方法可能不适用于受雨水和其他非点源污染影响的系统。然而,本研究的结果为粪便指示病毒在环境沿海地表水的应用提供了指导。

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