1 / 12

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 Hyer U.S. Geological Survey Richmond, Virginia October 17, 2003. An Overview of Bacterial Source Tracking - Methods and Applications Douglas Moyer & Kenneth Hyer U.S. Geological Survey

isadora-jacobson
Download Presentation

An Overview of Bacterial Source Tracking - Methods and Applications Douglas Moyer & Kenneth Hyer

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. An Overview of Bacterial Source Tracking - Methods and Applications Douglas Moyer & Kenneth Hyer U.S. Geological Survey Richmond, Virginia October 17, 2003 An Overview of Bacterial Source Tracking - Methods and Applications Douglas Moyer & Kenneth Hyer U.S. Geological Survey Richmond, Virginia October 17, 2003

  2. 303(D) List of Impaired Waters • More than 600 stream/rivers • listed as impaired • More than 50% listed for • violations of the fecal • coliform bacteria standard Determine the sources of fecal coliform bacteria causing the violations

  3. UNKNOWN KNOWN Indicator Water Source Organism Samples Samples Indicator Organism pattern pattern pattern pattern pattern pattern A C Dog Goose B Human Bacterial Source Tracking

  4. 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)

  5. 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.

  6. 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

  7. 35 Accotink Creek 30 Christians Creek 25 Blacks Run 20 Percent of Known 15 10 5 0 Cat Dog Deer Duck Horse Cattle Goose Human Poultry Sea Gull Raccoon BST Results:By Individual Contributor

  8. 0.25 0.04 Caffeine Cotinine 0.2 0.03 0.15 Cotinine (µg/L) Caffeine (µg/L) 0.02 0.1 0.01 0.05 0 0 Accotink Creek Christians Creek Blacks Run Validation of BST:Human Signature

  9. Other Other Dog 12.0% 21.1% Waterfowl 9.0% Waterfowl 37.0% 38.7% Deer Dog 10.0% 13.3% Deer 1.4% Human Raccoon Raccoon Human 17.0% 15.0% 5.4% 20.1% Results of BST:Comparison of Accotink Creek and Four Mile Run Accotink Creek, BST Results Four Mile Run, BST Results (N=279) (N=278)

  10. Fecal Coliform Modeling Process Fecal Coliform Concentration & BST Data Fecal Coliform/Manure Application/Deposition Wash-off by Overland Flow Die-off Land Surface Point Source Release of Bacteria with Interflow Blacks Run Shallow Sub-Surface Storage Release of Bacteria with Baseflow Deeper Sub-Surface Storage

  11. Fecal Coliform Calibration Observed BST Initial Model Calibration Final Model Calibration 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 CAT DOG DEER DUCK GOOSE HUMAN MUSKRAT RACCOON Percent Signature

  12. USGS Contact Information Watershed Model Doug Moyer 1730 E. Parham Rd Phone: 804-261-2634 Richmond, VA 23228 Email: dlmoyer@usgs.gov Bacterial Source Tracking Ken Hyer 1730 E. Parham Rd Phone: 804-261-2636 Richmond, VA 23228 Email: kenhyer@usgs.gov Resources on the Web http://water.usgs.gov/owq/microbial.html

More Related