Method Comparison Manuscript
Coliphage are alternative fecal indicators that may be suitable surrogates for viral pathogens, but a majority of standard detection methods utilize insufficient sample volumes (1-100 mL) for routine detection in environmental waters. Here we compare three somatic and F+ coliphage enumeration methods based on a paired measurement from 1L samples collected from the Great Lakes region (n=74). Methods include: 1) a dead-end hollow fiber ultrafilter combined with single agar layer plaque assay (D-HFUF-SAL); 2) a modified SAL (M-SAL); and 3) a direct membrane filtration (DMF) technique. Overall, D-HFUF-SAL outperformed all other methods as it yielded the lowest frequency of non-detects [(ND); 10.8%] and the highest average coliphage concentrations (2.51 ± 1.02 log10 plaque forming unit/liter (PFU/L) and 0.79 ± 0.71 log10 PFU/L for somatic and F+, respectively). M-SAL yielded 29.7% ND and average concentrations of 2.26 ± 1.15 log10 PFU/L (somatic) and 0.59 ± 0.82 log10 PFU/L (F+). DMF performed worse compared to D-HFUF-SAL and M-SAL methods (ND of 65.6%; average somatic coliphage concentration 1.52 ± 1.32 log10 PFU/L, with no F+ detected), indicating this procedure is unsuitable for 1L surface water sample volumes. This study represents an important step toward the use of a coliphage method for recreational water quality criteria purposes.
This dataset is associated with the following publication:
McMinn, B., E. Rhodes, E. Huff, P. Wanjugi, M. Ware, S. Nappier, M. Cyterski, O. Shanks, K. Oshima, and A. Korajkic. Comparison of somatic and F+ coliphage enumeration methods with large volume surface water samples. JOURNAL OF VIROLOGICAL METHODS. Elsevier Science Ltd, New York, NY, USA, 261: 63-66, (2018).
Complete Metadata
| accessLevel | public |
|---|---|
| bureauCode |
[
"020:00"
]
|
| contactPoint |
{
"fn": "Asja Korajkic",
"hasEmail": "mailto:korajkic.asja@epa.gov"
}
|
| description | Coliphage are alternative fecal indicators that may be suitable surrogates for viral pathogens, but a majority of standard detection methods utilize insufficient sample volumes (1-100 mL) for routine detection in environmental waters. Here we compare three somatic and F+ coliphage enumeration methods based on a paired measurement from 1L samples collected from the Great Lakes region (n=74). Methods include: 1) a dead-end hollow fiber ultrafilter combined with single agar layer plaque assay (D-HFUF-SAL); 2) a modified SAL (M-SAL); and 3) a direct membrane filtration (DMF) technique. Overall, D-HFUF-SAL outperformed all other methods as it yielded the lowest frequency of non-detects [(ND); 10.8%] and the highest average coliphage concentrations (2.51 ± 1.02 log10 plaque forming unit/liter (PFU/L) and 0.79 ± 0.71 log10 PFU/L for somatic and F+, respectively). M-SAL yielded 29.7% ND and average concentrations of 2.26 ± 1.15 log10 PFU/L (somatic) and 0.59 ± 0.82 log10 PFU/L (F+). DMF performed worse compared to D-HFUF-SAL and M-SAL methods (ND of 65.6%; average somatic coliphage concentration 1.52 ± 1.32 log10 PFU/L, with no F+ detected), indicating this procedure is unsuitable for 1L surface water sample volumes. This study represents an important step toward the use of a coliphage method for recreational water quality criteria purposes. This dataset is associated with the following publication: McMinn, B., E. Rhodes, E. Huff, P. Wanjugi, M. Ware, S. Nappier, M. Cyterski, O. Shanks, K. Oshima, and A. Korajkic. Comparison of somatic and F+ coliphage enumeration methods with large volume surface water samples. JOURNAL OF VIROLOGICAL METHODS. Elsevier Science Ltd, New York, NY, USA, 261: 63-66, (2018). |
| distribution |
[
{
"title": "ScienceHub.xlsx",
"mediaType": "application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet",
"downloadURL": "https://pasteur.epa.gov/uploads/10.23719/1434005/ScienceHub.xlsx"
}
]
|
| identifier | https://doi.org/10.23719/1434005 |
| keyword |
[
"coliphage",
"culture-based methods",
"method comparison"
]
|
| license | https://pasteur.epa.gov/license/sciencehub-license.html |
| modified | 2018-04-23 |
| programCode |
[
"020:000"
]
|
| publisher |
{
"name": "U.S. EPA Office of Research and Development (ORD)",
"subOrganizationOf": {
"name": "U.S. Environmental Protection Agency",
"subOrganizationOf": {
"name": "U.S. Government"
}
}
}
|
| references |
[
"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jviromet.2018.08.007"
]
|
| rights |
null
|
| title | Method Comparison Manuscript |