Mobile Laboratories: An Innovative Approach in Bacteria ... · Advantages of Mobile Laboratory:...
Transcript of Mobile Laboratories: An Innovative Approach in Bacteria ... · Advantages of Mobile Laboratory:...
Mobile Laboratories: An Innovative Approach in
Bacteria Monitoring
Mindy K. GarrisonOhio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission
Arthur GarceauIndiana Department of
Environmental Management
Why a Mobile Lab?Monitoring over large areasSix - hour hold timeAnalysis done on siteNumerous samplesThe method is simple enough to perform numerous samples in a very small spaceMobility provides easy access to the laboratory for various types of sampling crews
IDEM’sIDEM’s Mobile Mobile
E. coli E. coli LaboratoryLaboratory
Advantages of Mobile Laboratory:
Eliminates the necessity of transporting samples to lab within a 6-hour holding time
Can collect, prepare, incubate, read, and dispose of up to 40 samples per day
Complete analysis in field to increase the number of tests performed
ORSANCO Mobile Lab
Analytical Method
IDEXX Colilert ® Quanti-Tray 2000Standard Methods 20th Edition 9223 B
US EPA has accepted this method for use in drinking water programs and ambient water
E.coli Method ComparisonColilert® Method vs. Membrane Filtration• IDEXX Colilert® Method
• Standard Methods MPN Approach• Presence/Absence or Quantification
• Test Methods•Colilert®
total coliforms & E. coli
Colilert® Benefits
• Test Procedure•1 minute hands-on time•no media preparation
• Interpretation of Results• colony counting eliminated• no subjectivity (atypical, overlapping)• no confluent growth
• Cost• reduced labor
Figure 3: IDEXX Colilert® Method for E. coli Analysis
Reprinted with the permission of IDEXX Laboratories
Sealing Quanti-trays
Counting Coliforms
Counting E.coli
Samples in Incubator
IDEM Budget
2000 Chevy Van w/Conversion = $28,000Lab Equipment = $10,000Supplies = $7,000Grand Total = ~ $45,000
IDEM’s E.coli MonitoringProgram Description
Statewide Study AreaSurface water: Rivers, streams and lakes
Sites selected are known recreational and public access areasEach location is sampled five times equally spaced over a 30-day period
Single samples
956469 583 566
921
548 332 228
806
438 130 220
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
West Fork White RiverWatershed 2001
Upper Wabash Watershed2003
East Fork White River 2002 Great Lakes Watersheds2000
Watersheds
# of
sam
ples
take
n
Samples Greater than 940/100mL
Samples from 235 to 940 /100mL
Samples Less than 235/100mL
Single samples
956469 583 566
921
548 332 228
806
438 130 220
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
West Fork White RiverWatershed 2001
Upper WabashWatershed 2003
East Fork White River2002
Great LakesWatersheds 2000
Watersheds
# of
sam
ples
take
n
Samples Greater than 940/100mL
Samples from 235 to 940 /100mL
Samples Less than 235/100mL
Single E. coli Sample Results for Indiana Watersheds 2000-2003
32% 36%44% 50% 56% 56%
63% 66%74%
38% 34%33%
38% 32%22%
31% 22%17%30% 30% 23%
12% 12%22%
12% 9%6%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
Upper
Wabash
Wate
rshed
2003
West Fo
rk Whit
e Rive
r Wate
rshed
2001
Kank
akee
& Ill
inois F
ixed S
tation
s
Great M
iami W
atersh
ed 20
02
East
Fork
White R
iver 2
002
Great L
akes W
atersh
eds 2
000
Lower
Wabash
Wate
rshed
Fixe
d Stat
ionsS
Ohio Trib
s 200
0
Patok
a Wate
rshed
2001
Samples Greater than 940/100mL
Samples from 235 to 940 /100mL
Samples Less than 235/100mL
ORSANCO’sSampling Plan
Sampling the entire Ohio River (981 miles) in three surveys3 point cross sections
Every 5 milesOn all major tribs (> 1000 sq. miles)Downstream of all POTWs > 0.5 MGD
Cover entire reach in 1 weekSample 5 consecutive weeks
ORSANCO’s Budget
Mobile Lab – Ford E-450 Cutaway Van Cab with 17’ box = $94,000Equipment = $15,000Supplies for 4600 samples w/ two dilutions per sample = $55,000Grand Total =~ $164,000
ORSANCO’sSampling Plan
Two surveys have been completed:Pittsburgh to R.C. Byrd L&D (280 river miles)R.C. Byrd L&D to Salt River (350 river miles)
Third survey began May 3rd 2004Salt River to Mississippi River
Allegheny
Monongahela
Beaver
Muskingum
Scioto
HockingL. Miami
G. Miami
Wabash
Embarass
L. Wabash
L. Kanawha
Kanawha
New
Big SandyLicking
KentuckySalt
Green
Cumberland
Clinch
Holston
French BroadL. Tennessee
Hiwassee
Tennessee
Duck
Tennessee
Ohio
SalineOhio
OhioILIN OH
PA
NY
VA
WV
MD
KY
TNNC
GAAL
MS
Ohio River Basin
W. Fork White
E. Fork White
Elk
Guyandotte
Youghheny
ORSANCOSurvey Stats
825 cross sections completed2950 samples collected
Includes duplicates
5800 samples analyzedIncludes dilutions + quality controls
Contract lab samples analyzed for E. coli and fecal coliform (~ 20%)
Upper River Bacteria SurveyCross-Sectional Mean
July 28 - Aug 28, 2003
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
0 70 140 210 280
Ohio River Mile
E. c
oli (
CFU
/100
mL)
Wk 1Wk 2Wk3Wk 4Wk 5WQSWater Quality Standard
Middle River Bacteria SurveyCross-Sectional Mean
Sept 29 - Oct 30, 2003
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
280 330 380 430 480 530 580 630
Ohio River Mile
E. c
oli
(CFU
/100
mL)
Wk 1Wk 2Wk3Wk 4Wk 5WQSWater Quality Standard
Contract Lab Duplicate AnalysisE. coli by Membrane Filtration
R2 = 0.8257
0
400
800
1200
1600
2000
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
Sample (CFU/100 ml)
Dup
licat
e (C
FU/1
00 m
l)
Average Relative % Difference: 32.1%
Mobile Lab Duplicate AnalysisE. coli by Colilert
R2 = 0.980
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Sample (MPN CFU/100ml)
Dup
licat
e (M
PN C
FU/1
00m
l)
Average Relative % Difference: 26.2%
Colilert vs Membrane FiltrationE. coli Comparison by Lab
R2 = 0.8533
R2 = 0.5818
R2 = 0.9405
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Colilert MPN (CFU/100 ml)
MF
(CFU
/100
ml)
Cardinal MicroBac MicroBio
Membrane Filtration vs. ColilertComparison to E. coli Standard
MF Exceed MF No Exceed
9119.4%
255.3%
132.8%
34072.5%
Colilert Exceed
Colilert No Exceed