1 / 15

Tricia Coakley 1 , Gail Brion 2 , and Alan Fryar 1 University of Kentucky

Relationships between indicators of fecal load, source, and age: Developing a multi-indicator approach for risk characterization. Tricia Coakley 1 , Gail Brion 2 , and Alan Fryar 1 University of Kentucky

Télécharger la présentation

Tricia Coakley 1 , Gail Brion 2 , and Alan Fryar 1 University of Kentucky

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Relationships between indicators of fecal load, source, and age:Developing a multi-indicator approach for risk characterization Tricia Coakley1, Gail Brion2, and Alan Fryar1 University of Kentucky 1 Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, 101 Slone Building Lexington, KY 40506-0053 USA 2 Department of Civil Engineering, 161 Raymond Building, Lexington, Kentucky 40506-0281 USA

  2. Lexington, Kentucky Population: 280,000

  3. 2007 study of Wolf Run watershed • Fields primers: • Bac 32F • CF 128F • HF 183F • HF 134F • General fecal marker detected in every sample • Human fecal markers detected frequently throughout the watershed • Unable to define most urgent locations for remediation

  4. 3 Indicators rather than 1

  5. 2008 Study Area

  6. Methods • E.coli by Idexx Quantitray 2000 • AC/TC by mEndo broth and membrane filtration • Bacteroides host specific fecal markers by qPCR with primers and probes developed by Alice Layton (University of Tennessee) • Hubac = human specific • Allbac = general

  7. Results • E.coli concentrations from <10 to >17,000 MPN/100mL • AC/TC ratios from 1 to 97 • Allbac found in all samples and ranging across 4 orders of magnitude • Hubac marker found in all but one sample and ranging across 5 orders of magnitude but with a lesser concentration than Allbac in each case • Hubac/Allbac apportionment allowed greater ablility to define hotspots of human sewage than Hubac concentration alone. • Screening samples with E.coli and AC/TC before analysis by qPCR would have reduced our molecular methods costs in half while providing necessary information to accurately locate the hotspots for immediate remediation.

  8. Hubac and AC/TC relationship All samples with Hubac >20% also have AC/TC <20 All samples with AC/TC >20 also have Hubac <20% Some samples with Hubac <20% also have AC/TC <20 and this group typically had low E.coli loads

  9. Wolf Run watershed (Hubac/Allbac)*100 <1% 1-10% 11-20% 21-30% 31-50% >50%

  10. Wolf Run watershed • 15 samples with E.coli >500 MPN/100mL • 16 samples with AC/TC <20 • 13 samples meet both screening criteria • Of the 13 potential hotspots, 6 have >20% Hubac/Allbac • Only 1 hotspot identified by Hubac/Allbac of >20% failed the screening criteria

  11. Glenns Creek Watershed (Hubac/Allbac)*100 <1% 1-10% Copies of DNA/mL 11-20% 21-30% 31-50%

  12. Glenns Creek watershed • 3 samples with E.coli >500 MPN/100mL • 4 samples with AC/TC <20 • 2 samples meet both screening criteria for potential hotspots • Of those 2 samples, 1 was determined to be the only hotspot in this watershed with >20% Hubac/Allbac

  13. Screening with E.coli and AC/TC across 3 watersheds Conclusion: E.coli and AC/TC are effective screening tools prior to molecular analysis for fecal source tracking. • Sensitivity = 87.5% • Specificity = 62.5% • Positive predictive value = 43.8% • Negative predictive value = 93.8%

  14. Recommended Fecal Source Tracking Plan for reducing molecular methods expenses while maintaining necessary spatial sampling range • Sample a large number of locations canvassing the entire watershed. • Filter and archive DNA and analyze all samples for E.coli and AC/TC • Extract and analyze samples with greatest E.coli and lowest AC/TC values by qPCR for Allbac and Hubac markers. • Samples with greatest Hubac/Allbac percentages should be considered for immediate remediation.

  15. Acknowledgements • Alice Layton and Dan Williams at the Center for Environmental Biotechnology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville • Kentucky Water Resources Research Institute • United States Geological Survey • Ken Cooke, Friends of Wolf Run, Kentucky River Watershed Watch, and Jean Watts,Tracy Knowles and students of Bluegrass Community Technical College

More Related