Edward Hyer Naval Research Laboratory JCSDA Symposium 11 October 2012
An Overview of Bacterial Source Tracking - Methods and Applications Douglas Moyer & Kenneth Hyer
-
Upload
isadora-jacobson -
Category
Documents
-
view
15 -
download
1
description
Transcript of An Overview of Bacterial Source Tracking - Methods and Applications Douglas Moyer & Kenneth Hyer
An Overview of Bacterial Source Tracking - Methods and
Applications
Douglas Moyer & Kenneth HyerU.S. Geological Survey
Richmond, Virginia
October 17, 2003
An Overview of Bacterial Source Tracking - Methods and
Applications
Douglas Moyer & Kenneth HyerU.S. Geological Survey
Richmond, Virginia
October 17, 2003
303(D) List of Impaired Waters
Determine the sources ofDetermine the sources offecal coliform bacteriafecal coliform bacteriacausing the violationscausing the violations
• More than 600 stream/riversMore than 600 stream/rivers listed as impairedlisted as impaired
• More than 50% listed for More than 50% listed for violations of the fecal violations of the fecal coliform bacteria standardcoliform bacteria standard
Bacterial Source TrackingBacterial Source Tracking
WaterSamples
SourceSamples
IndicatorOrganism
IndicatorOrganism
patternC
patternB
patternA
patternDog
patternHuman
patternGoose
UNKNOWN KNOWN
BST Methods Comparison Study
• Study involves a direct comparison of 7 BST methods. Each researcher is provided a collection of known library isolates. Evaluation is based on the utility of each method to identify 200
blind isolates (which were from known sources).
• Five Genotypic Methods (and investigators)– Ribotyping using two different enzyme sets
(George Lukasik, Mansour Samadpour)– Pulsed-field Gel Electrophoresis
(West Virginia Department of Agriculture)– rep-PCR using two different primer sets
(Howard Kator, Don Stoeckel)
• Two Phenotypic Methods (and investigators)– Antibiotic Resistance Analysis (Bruce Wiggins)– Carbon Substrate Utilization (Chuck Hagedorn)
Methods Comparison - Conclusions
• In a general sense, we found that:-In this study, under these conditions… These results may not be universal!-All methods did not produce comparable results; some methods were more
successful than others.-Results will be published this winter, likely in Environmental Science and
Technology. A draft manuscript is currently in the review process.• This is one of a few comparison studies being done. Need to see
what some of these other comparison studies determine...• Without stepping through the results, we can offer these
conclusions/recommendations:-Perform considerable QA/QC in your BST work! This may include: (1) analyzing blind collections of known isolates,
(2) use of multiple BST methods, and (3) the use of other tracers to support the BST work.
-Source tracking has tremendous potential, just be cautious in your application of this new technology.
Field Application of BST
• Three Streams included on the DEQ 303(d) list:Accotink Creek, Christians Creek, and Blacks Run
• Field Data Collection– Water-sample collection
• Baseflow - 8 samples every 6 weeks • Stormflow - 10 samples during 5 events
– Source Samples
• Bacteria Source Tracking Analysis – Ribotyping
• TMDL Development Using HSPF
BST Results:BST Results:By Individual ContributorBy Individual Contributor
Blacks RunBlacks Run
Christians CreekChristians Creek
Accotink CreekAccotink Creek
00
55
1010
1515
2020
2525
3030
3535G
oo
seG
oo
se
Hu
ma
nH
um
an
Do
gD
og
Du
ckD
uck
Ca
tC
at
Se
a G
ull
Se
a G
ull
Ra
cco
on
Ra
cco
on
Ca
ttle
Ca
ttle
De
er
De
er
Ho
rse
Ho
rse
Po
ultr
yP
oul
try
Pe
rce
nt o
f Kn
ow
nP
erc
en
t of K
no
wn
Validation of BST:Validation of BST:Human SignatureHuman Signature
Accotink CreekAccotink Creek Christians CreekChristians Creek Blacks RunBlacks Run
CaffeineCaffeine
00
0.050.05
0.10.1
0.150.15
0.20.2
0.250.25
Ca
ffein
e (
µg
/L)
Ca
ffein
e (
µg
/L)
CotinineCotinine
00
0.010.01
0.020.02
0.030.03
0.040.04
Co
tinin
e (
µg
/L)
Co
tinin
e (
µg
/L)
OtherOther21.1%21.1%
OtherOther12.0%12.0%
Accotink Creek, BST ResultsAccotink Creek, BST Results
(N=279)(N=279)
DogDog13.3%13.3%
DogDog9.0%9.0%
DeerDeer1.4%1.4%
DeerDeer10.0%10.0%
Four Mile Run, BST ResultsFour Mile Run, BST Results
(N=278)(N=278)
WaterfowlWaterfowl38.7%38.7%
WaterfowlWaterfowl37.0%37.0%
RaccoonRaccoon5.4%5.4%
RaccoonRaccoon15.0%15.0%
Results of BST:Results of BST:Comparison of Accotink Creek and Four Mile RunComparison of Accotink Creek and Four Mile Run
HumanHuman20.1%20.1%
HumanHuman17.0%17.0%
Fecal Coliform Modeling Process
ShallowShallowSub-SurfaceSub-Surface
StorageStorage
DeeperDeeperSub-SurfaceSub-Surface
StorageStorage
Wash-offWash-off by Overlandby Overland
FlowFlow
Release of Release of Bacteria withBacteria with
InterflowInterflow
PointPointSourceSource
Fecal Coliform/ManureFecal Coliform/ManureApplication/DepositionApplication/Deposition
LandLandSurfaceSurface
Die
-off
Die
-off
Release of Release of Bacteria withBacteria with
BaseflowBaseflow
Blacks R
un
Fecal Coliform ConcentrationFecal Coliform Concentration& BST Data & BST Data
Fecal Coliform Calibration
00
55
1010
1515
2020
2525
3030
3535
4040G
OO
SE
GO
OS
E
HU
MA
NH
UM
AN
DO
GD
OG
DU
CK
DU
CK
CA
TC
AT
RA
CC
OO
NR
AC
CO
ON
DE
ER
DE
ER
MU
SK
RA
TM
US
KR
AT
Observed BSTObserved BST
Initial Model CalibrationInitial Model Calibration
Final Model CalibrationFinal Model Calibration
Per
cent
Sig
natu
reP
erce
nt S
igna
ture
USGS Contact InformationUSGS Contact Information
Watershed ModelWatershed ModelDoug MoyerDoug Moyer1730 E. Parham Rd1730 E. Parham Rd Phone: 804-261-2634Phone: 804-261-2634Richmond, VA 23228Richmond, VA 23228 Email: [email protected]: [email protected]
Bacterial Source TrackingBacterial Source TrackingKen HyerKen Hyer1730 E. Parham Rd1730 E. Parham Rd Phone: 804-261-2636Phone: 804-261-2636Richmond, VA 23228Richmond, VA 23228 Email: [email protected]: [email protected]
Resources on the WebResources on the Webhttp://water.usgs.gov/owq/microbial.htmlhttp://water.usgs.gov/owq/microbial.html