Proposed
title: Methods of Targeting Animal Sources of Fecal
Pollution in Water
Chapter
number: 4
Authors
Anicet R
Blanch. Department of Microbiology, University of Barcelona. Diagonal 643.
08028 Barcelona (Spain), ablanch@ub.edu Phone: +34 934029012 (AB)
Elisenda
Ballesté. Department of Microbiology, University of Barcelona. Diagonal 643.
08028 Barcelona (Spain), elisballeste@gmail.com Phone: +34 934039044 (EB)
Jennifer
Weidhaas. Civil and Environmental Engineering, 647 Engineering Sciences
Building, PO Box 6103, Morgantown, WV 26506. jennifer.weidhaas@mail.wvu.edu Phone: +1 304-293-9952 (JW)
Jorge
Santodomingo. U.S. EPA, NRMRL/WSWRD/MCCB, 26 W. Martin Luther King Dr. MS 387
Cincinnati, OH 45268, Santodomingo.Jorge@epamail.epa.gov Phone: +1 5135697085 (JS)
Hodon
Ryu. U.S. EPA, NRMRL/WSWRD/MCCB, 26 W. Martin Luther King Dr. MS 387
Cincinnati, OH 45268 ryu.hodon@epamail.epa.gov Phone: XXXXXXX (HR)
Notes
Chemical
indicators are briefly overviewed by avoiding overlap with chapter 5.
Chapter
Highlights
The
determination of fecal pollution sources in waters is an essential subject in
the management of catchments. Municipal sewage, slaughterhouse wastewaters,
manure and different biowaste disposal, wildlife and undetermined runoff are
some of the different fecal pollution sources. Although traditional
microbiological water analyses using indicator microorganisms have showed to be
highly useful for water-health management for more than a century, it is known
that they are not providing information about the origin of fecal pollution.
The distinction between anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic (animal) fecal
pollution would greatly support assessment of health risks associated with the
host-specificity of many pathogens. Human sewage could constitute a higher
health risk to humans than wastewater of animal origin. However, there are some
exceptions because of some pathogens (named zoonosis) can infect and cause
clinical disease in both humans and animals. Therefore, the fecal pollution
source assessment could support and determine different water management
strategies, treatment measures and policies to prevent or decrease fecal inputs
in water based on the principles of precaution, prevention and remediation of
environmental contaminant at the source.
At the
beginning, most of the proposed indicators on Microbial Source Tracking were
defined and developed to target human fecal pollution sources. However, the
distinction of different animal species sources was enforced to QMRA studies,
to resolve complex mixtures from several distinct animal species or to identify
diffuse pollution sources.
In this
chapter, proposed chemical and biological MST indicators for the determination
of animal fecal sources are firstly described and analyzed. The biological
indicators are grouped based on the phylogenetic adscription of the proposed
target (eukarya, bacteria, and virus). A comprehensive description for each
proposed target is provided and the developed methodologies employed in their
respective analyses are presented, referred and analyzed. Special emphasis on
validation and applicability for each proposed method and animal-MST indicator
is quoted. Moreover, each proposed
target is critically reviewed concerning environmental factors such prevalence,
resistance to different water treatments, and environmental persistence. New
molecular approaches for animal-NST targets based on metagenomics are also
presented in a specific section by analyzing limitations and strengths at the
present stage of the methodology. Finally, MST assay implementation on
practical cases, their contribution to the assessment of maximum fecal load of
water bodies and their relationship to traditional microbial indicators and
waterborne pathogens is examined.
1.
Introduction
(JS & AB). Short description of
initial studies and factors requesting the animal fecal source markers on MST
studies, and state of the art.
2.
MST
targets for animal sources:
2.1.
Chemical
targets (JW). Comprehensive presentation
of proposed chemical markers for animal fecal sources, avoiding overlap with
chapter 5.
2.2.
Biological
targets (each proposed marker/target will
be comprehensively described; guidelines for selecting the best procedure will
be indicated explaining applications or circumstances supported by reference.
Validation studies and environmental factors such prevalence, resistance to
different water treatments, and environmental persistence should be also
considered):
2.2.1. Eukaryotic targets:
2.2.1.1.
DNA
Mitochondrial Targets (JW).
2.2.1.2.
Parasites:
Cryptosporidium and Giardia (HR & JS)
2.2.2. Bacterial targets:
2.2.2.1.
Bacteroides and related genera (EB &
AB). Also reported as Order Bacteroidales (Bacteroides, Prevotella, Porphyromonas and Parabacteroides).
2.2.2.2.
Bifidobacterium and related genera (EB &
AB). Including the recently described
genus Neoscardovia associated with
porcine.
2.2.2.3.
Brevibacterium (JW)
2.2.2.4.
Rodococcus coprophilus (JW)
2.2.2.5.
Enterococcus, Streptococcus, Catellicoccus, and
Helicobacter (JS & HR)
2.2.2.6.
Phenotypic
library-depending methods based on microbial antibiotic resistance or carbon
source utilization (JS & HR). Avoiding
overlapping to chapter 3 being focused on animal target.
2.2.2.7.
Genotypic
library-depending methods (rep-PCR, RAPD, AFLP, PFGE, rybotypin) (JS & HR).
Avoiding overlapping to chapter 3 being
focused on animal targets.
2.2.3. Viral targets:
2.2.3.1.
Bacteriophages
(EB & AB). Including mainly
bacteriophages of F-RNA and Bacteroides.
2.2.3.2.
Animal
viruses (EB & AB).
3.
New
molecular approaches and future perspectives: metagenomics (HR & JS).
4.
Implementation
in routine MST analyses. Relationship to traditional FIB and pathogens (JS
& JW).
5. Discussion (AB, EB, JW, JS, HR). All co-authors should provide their
respective contributions to this section. A table of methods and targets with
pro/cons could be also included in this section.
No comments:
Post a Comment