Comparison of somatic and F+ coliphage enumeration methods with large volume surface water samples

利用大体积地表水样品比较体细胞噬菌体计数法和F+噬菌体计数法

阅读:1

Abstract

Coliphages are alternative fecal indicators that may be suitable surrogates for viral pathogens, but majority of standard detection methods utilize insufficient volumes for routine detection in environmental waters. We compared three somatic and F+ coliphage methods based on a paired measurement from 1 L samples collected from the Great Lakes (n = 74). Methods include: 1) dead-end hollow fiber ultrafilter with single agar layer (D-HFUF-SAL); 2) modified SAL (M-SAL); and 3) direct membrane filtration (DMF) technique. Overall, D-HFUF-SAL outperformed other methods as it yielded the lowest frequency of non-detects [(ND); 10.8%] and the highest average concentrations of recovered coliphage for positive samples (2.51 ± 1.02 [standard deviation, SD] log(10) plaque forming unit/liter (PFU/L) and 0.79 ± 0.71 (SD) log(10) PFU/L for somatic and F+, respectively). M-SAL yielded 29.7% ND and average concentrations of 2.26 ± 1.15 (SD) log(10) PFU/L (somatic) and 0.59 ± 0.82 (SD) log(10) PFU/L (F+). DMF performance was inferior to D-HFUF-SAL and M-SAL methods (ND of 65.6%; average somatic coliphage concentration 1.52 ± 1.32 [SD] log(10) PFU/L, no F+ detected), indicating this procedure is unsuitable for 1 L surface water sample volumes. This study represents an important step toward the use of a coliphage method for recreational water quality criteria purposes.

特别声明

1、本页面内容包含部分的内容是基于公开信息的合理引用;引用内容仅为补充信息,不代表本站立场。

2、若认为本页面引用内容涉及侵权,请及时与本站联系,我们将第一时间处理。

3、其他媒体/个人如需使用本页面原创内容,需注明“来源:[生知库]”并获得授权;使用引用内容的,需自行联系原作者获得许可。

4、投稿及合作请联系:info@biocloudy.com。