Chapter Outline: MST: Field Study Planning and Implementation

Proposed title: MST: Field Study Planning and Implementation
(Kinzelman and Ahmed)        

Chapter no.: 6

 

Authors:

Julie Kinzelman (Ph.D.)

                  Racine Health Department Laboratory

                  730 Washington Avenue, Room 8

                  Racine, WI 53403 USA

                  Phone: (+001) 262-636-9501

                  Fax: (+001) 262-636-9576

                  E-mail: julie.kinzelman@cityofracine.org

 

                  Warish Ahmed (Ph.D.)
                  CSIRO Land and Water
                  Water for a Healthy Country Flagship
                  Queensland Biosciences Precinct
                  306 Carmody Rd. St. Lucia Qld 4067 AUSTRALIA
                  Phone: (+ 617) 3833 5582
                  Fax: (+617) 3833 5503

                  E- mail: Warish.Ahmed@csiro.au

Notes

• Define the anticipated outcome in order to determine study design
• Multiple lines of evidence may be necessary, i.e., a “tool-box” approach. Refer to methods presented in other chapters (analytical and field based)
• Weight of evidence approach towards implementation—correlation, not causation
• A multi-barrier approach should be stressed in communication of results/implementation, i.e., public education in addition to naturalized or engineered solutions

      Proposed Topics

1)     Define (or refer back to) aquatic environments, routes of exposure, human exposure interventions.

      2)     Regulatory approaches: TMDLs, bathing water, permitting

3)     Determining study outcome/objectives.

4)     Field study design: sampling duration/frequency, accounting for temporal/spatial variation, leveraging historic data.

5)     Considerations for method choice. Stress the use of sanitary surveys/inspections and spatial distribution studies to focus more costly, targeted MST methods on the probable source. Use of both analytical methods and models. Determine level of detail required, i.e. human vs. nonhuman or species specific. Multiple methods may be necessary.

6)     What do you do with all the data? Data analysis and interpretation.

7)     Stakeholder engagement. Translation of study results into actionable items (implementation).

8)     Case studies.

9)     Barriers and confounding factors, i.e., cost, access to analytical facilities, assay inhibition, lack of specificity/sensitivity, changes in land use, climate change, transferability of technologies to local water authorities, etc.

     Chapter Highlights

The following concepts will be conveyed in this chapter:

1. Significant advances have occurred in both the development of MST tools and the application of these to tools in assessing fecal pollution in aquatic environments.
2. Host specificity—can Baye’s theorem be applied based on the published data on the host specificity of a particular marker such as HF183?
3. A single MST tool may provide adequate information, multiple lines of evidence may be necessary in order to strengthen the association between measures environmental parameters and pollution sources.
4. What magnitude of fecal pollution can pose a risk? Is the presence of a marker enough? Importance of quantitative data over presence/absence. 
5. A weight of evidence approach, in the presence or absence of a definite source, has been successfully applied to the mitigation of pollution sources.
6. Results of MST studies must be taken in context. Confounding factors exist and must be addressed.