Fecal pollution of recreational waters can cause scenic blight and pose a threat to public health, resulting in beach advisories and closures. Fecal indicator bacteria (total and fecal coliforms,
, ...and enterococci), and alternative indicators of fecal pollution (
and bacteriophages) are routinely used in the assessment of sanitary quality of recreational waters. However, fecal indicator bacteria (FIB), and alternative indicators are found in the gastrointestinal tract of humans, and many other animals and therefore are considered general indicators of fecal pollution. As such, there is room for improvement in terms of their use for informing risk assessment and remediation strategies. Microbial source tracking (MST) genetic markers are closely associated with animal hosts and are used to identify fecal pollution sources. In this review, we examine 73 papers generated over 40 years that reported the relationship between at least one indicator and one pathogen group or species. Nearly half of the reports did not include statistical analysis, while the remainder were almost equally split between those that observed statistically significant relationships and those that did not. Statistical significance was reported less frequently in marine and brackish waters compared to freshwater, and the number of statistically significant relationships was considerably higher in freshwater (
< 0.0001). Overall, significant relationships were more commonly reported between FIB and pathogenic bacteria or protozoa, compared to pathogenic viruses (
: 0.0022⁻0.0005), and this was more pronounced in freshwater compared to marine. Statistically significant relationships were typically noted following wet weather events and at sites known to be impacted by recent fecal pollution. Among the studies that reported frequency of detection, FIB were detected most consistently, followed by alternative indicators. MST markers and the three pathogen groups were detected least frequently. This trend was mirrored by reported concentrations for each group of organisms (FIB > alternative indicators > MST markers > pathogens). Thus, while FIB, alternative indicators, and MST markers continue to be suitable indicators of fecal pollution, their relationship with waterborne pathogens, particularly viruses, is tenuous at best and influenced by many different factors such as frequency of detection, variable shedding rates, differential fate and transport characteristics, as well as a broad range of site-specific factors such as the potential for the presence of a complex mixture of multiple sources of fecal contamination and pathogens.
Fecal microorganisms can enter water bodies in diverse ways, including runoff, sewage discharge, and direct fecal deposition. Once in water, the microorganisms experience conditions that are very ...different from intestinal habitats. The transition from host to aquatic environment may lead to rapid inactivation, some degree of persistence, or growth. Microorganisms may remain planktonic, be deposited in sediment, wash up on beaches, or attach to aquatic vegetation. Each of these habitats offers a panoply of different stressors or advantages, including UV light exposure, temperature fluctuations, salinity, nutrient availability, and biotic interactions with the indigenous microbiota (e.g., predation and/or competition). The host sources of fecal microorganisms are likewise numerous, including wildlife, pets, livestock, and humans. Most of these microorganisms are unlikely to affect human health, but certain taxa can cause waterborne disease. Others signal increased probability of pathogen presence, e.g., the fecal indicator bacteria
and enterococci and bacteriophages, or act as fecal source identifiers (microbial source tracking markers). The effects of environmental factors on decay are frequently inconsistent across microbial species, fecal sources, and measurement strategies (e.g., culture versus molecular). Therefore, broad generalizations about the fate of fecal microorganisms in aquatic environments are problematic, compromising efforts to predict microbial decay and health risk from contamination events. This review summarizes the recent literature on decay of fecal microorganisms in aquatic environments, recognizes defensible generalizations, and identifies knowledge gaps that may provide particularly fruitful avenues for obtaining a better understanding of the fates of these organisms in aquatic environments.
Abstract
Microbial source tracking (MST) describes a suite of methods and an investigative strategy for determination of fecal pollution sources in environmental waters that rely on the association ...of certain fecal microorganisms with a particular host. MST is used to assess recreational water quality and associated human health risk, and total maximum daily load allocations. Many methods rely on signature molecules (markers) such as DNA sequences of host-associated microorganisms. Human sewage pollution is among the greatest concerns for human health due to (1) the known risk of exposure to human waste and (2) the public and regulatory will to reduce sewage pollution; however, methods to identify animal sources are receiving increasing attention as our understanding of zoonotic disease potential improves. Here, we review the performance of MST methods in initial reports and field studies, with particular emphasis on quantitative PCR (qPCR). Relationships among human-associated MST markers, fecal indicator bacteria, pathogens, and human health outcomes are presented along with recommendations for future research. An integrated understanding of the advantages and drawbacks of the many MST methods targeting human sources advanced over the past several decades will benefit managers, regulators, researchers, and other users of this rapidly growing area of environmental microbiology.
This review of microbial source tracking (MST) methods for determining the dominant sources of fecal pollution in environmental waters focuses on qPCR-based assays, method performance, and the relationship of MST markers to fecal indicator bacteria, pathogens, and human health outcomes.
There is currently a clear benefit for many countries to utilize wastewater-based epidemiology (WBE) as part of ongoing measures to manage the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) global pandemic. ...Since most wastewater virus concentration methods were developed and validated for nonenveloped viruses, it is imperative to determine the efficiency of the most commonly used methods for the enveloped severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Municipal wastewater seeded with a human coronavirus (CoV) surrogate, murine hepatitis virus (MHV), was used to test the efficiency of seven wastewater virus concentration methods: (A–C) adsorption-extraction with three different pre-treatment options, (D–E) centrifugal filter device methods with two different devices, (F) polyethylene glycol (PEG 8000) precipitation, and (G) ultracentrifugation. MHV was quantified by reverse-transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction and the recovery efficiency was calculated for each method. The mean MHV recoveries ranged from 26.7 to 65.7%. The most efficient methods were adsorption-extraction methods with MgCl2 pre-treatment (Method C), and without pre-treatment (Method B). The third most efficient method used the Amicon® Ultra-15 centrifugal filter device (Method D) and its recovery efficiency was not statistically different from the most efficient methods. The methods with the worst recovery efficiency included the adsorption-extraction method with acidification (A), followed by PEG precipitation (F). Our results suggest that absorption-extraction methods with minimal or without pre-treatment can provide suitably rapid, cost-effective and relatively straightforward recovery of enveloped viruses in wastewater. The MHV is a promising process control for SARS-CoV-2 surveillance and can be used as a quality control measure to support community-level epidemic mitigation and risk assessment.
Display omitted
•Seven virus concentration methods were evaluated to recover CoV from wastewater.•The mean MHV recoveries ranged from 26.7 to 65.7%.•Adsorption-extraction with MgCl2 pre-treatment most efficiently concentrated MHV.•MHV seems to be an appropriate process control.
Wastewater-based epidemiology (WBE) demonstrates potential for COVID-19 community transmission monitoring; however, data on the stability of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in wastewater are needed to interpret WBE ...results. The decay rates of RNA from SARS-CoV-2 and a potential surrogate, murine hepatitis virus (MHV), were investigated by reverse transcription-quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) in untreated wastewater, autoclaved wastewater, and dechlorinated tap water stored at 4, 15, 25, and 37 °C. Temperature, followed by matrix type, most greatly influenced SARS-CoV-2 RNA first-order decay rates (k). The average T90 (time required for 1-log10 reduction) of SARS-CoV-2 RNA ranged from 8.04 to 27.8 days in untreated wastewater, 5.71 to 43.2 days in autoclaved wastewater, and 9.40 to 58.6 days in tap water. The average T90 for RNA of MHV at 4 to 37 °C ranged from 7.44 to 56.6 days in untreated wastewater, 5.58–43.1 days in autoclaved wastewater, and 10.9 to 43.9 days in tap water. There was no statistically significant difference between RNA decay of SARS-CoV-2 and MHV; thus, MHV is suggested as a suitable persistence surrogate. Decay rate constants for all temperatures were comparable across all matrices for both viral RNAs, except in untreated wastewater for SARS-CoV-2, which showed less sensitivity to elevated temperatures. Therefore, SARS-CoV-2 RNA is likely to persist long enough in untreated wastewater to permit reliable detection for WBE application.
•Temperature most greatly influenced SARS-CoV-2 RNA first-order decay rates.•SARS-CoV-2 and MHV RNA decay characteristics were similar.•MHV is suggested as suitable persistence surrogate.•SARS-CoV-2 RNA is likely to persist long enough in wastewater to permit detection.
We monitored the concentration of indicator viruses crAssphage and pepper mild mottle virus (PMMoV) and human pathogen adenovirus (HAdV) in influent from a wastewater treatment plant in Brisbane, ...Australia in 1-h and 24-h composite samples. Over three days of sampling, the mean concentration of crAssphage gene copies (GC)/mL in 24-h composite samples did not differ significantly (p = 0.72-0.92), while for PMMoV GC/mL (p value range: 0.0002–0.0321) and HAdV GC/mL (p value range: 0.0028–0.0068) significant differences in concentrations were observed on one day of sampling compared to the other two. For all three viruses, the variation observed in 1-h composite samples was greater than the variation observed in 24-h composite samples. For crAssphage, in 54.1% of 1-h composite samples, the concentration was less than that observed in 24-h composite samples; whereas for PMMoV and HAdV the concentration was less in 79.2 and 70.9% of 1-h composite samples, respectively, compared to the relevant 24-h composite samples. Similarly, the concentration of crAssphage in 1-h compared to 24-h composite samples did not differ (p = 0.1082) while the concentrations of PMMoV (p < 0.0001) and HAdV (p < 0.0001) in 1-h composite samples were significantly different from 24-h composite samples. These results suggest that 24-h composite samples offer increased analytical sensitivity and decreased variability compared to 1-h composite samples when monitoring wastewater, especially for pathogenic viruses with low infection rates within a community. Thus, for wastewater-based epidemiology applications, 24-h composite samples are less likely to produce false negative results and erroneous public health information.
Display omitted
•CrAssphage exhibited less variability than HAdV and PMMoV.•Grab sampling not preferable for WWTP with greater retention time.•24-h composite samples offer increased analytical sensitivity.•24-h composite sampling is recommended to minimize false-negative results.
To support public-health-related disease surveillance and monitoring, it is crucial to concentrate both enveloped and non-enveloped viruses from domestic wastewater. To date, most concentration ...methods were developed for non-enveloped viruses, and limited studies have directly compared the recovery efficiency of both types of viruses. In this study, the effectiveness of two different concentration methods (Concentrating pipette (CP) method and an adsorption-extraction (AE) method amended with MgCl2) were evaluated for untreated wastewater matrices using three different viruses (SARS-CoV-2 (seeded), human adenovirus 40/41 (HAdV 40/41), and enterovirus (EV)) and a wastewater-associated bacterial marker gene targeting Lachnospiraceae (Lachno3). For SARS-CoV-2, the estimated mean recovery efficiencies were significantly greater by as much as 5.46 times, using the CP method than the AE method amended with MgCl2. SARS-CoV-2 RNA recovery was greater for samples with higher titer seeds regardless of the method, and the estimated mean recovery efficiencies using the CP method were 25.1 ± 11% across ten WWTPs when wastewater samples were seeded with 5 × 104 gene copies (GC) of SARS-CoV-2. Meanwhile, the AE method yielded significantly greater concentrations of indigenous HAdV 40/41 and Lachno3 from wastewater compared to the CP method. Finally, no significant differences in indigenous EV concentrations were identified in comparing the AE and CP methods. These data indicate that the most effective concentration method varies by microbial analyte and that the priorities of the surveillance or monitoring program should be considered when choosing the concentration method.
Display omitted
•Concentration methods varied by microbial target.•Concentrating pipette yielded better recovery for SARS-CoV-2 than adsorption-extraction method.•SARS-CoV-2 RNA recovery was greater for samples with higher titer seeds.•Laboratories must empirically validate methods for water matrix and microbial target.
Sanitary quality of recreational waters worldwide is assessed using fecal indicator bacteria (FIB), such as Escherichia coli and enterococci. However, fate and transport characteristics of FIB in ...aquatic habitats can differ from those of viral pathogens which have been identified as main etiologic agents of recreational waterborne illness. Coliphages (bacteriophages infecting E. coli) are an attractive alternative to FIB because of their many morphological and structural similarities to viral pathogens.
In this in situ field study, we used a submersible aquatic mesocosm to compare decay characteristics of somatic and F+ coliphages to those of infectious human adenovirus 2 in a freshwater lake. In addition, we also evaluated the effect of ambient sunlight (and associated UV irradiation) and indigenous protozoan communities on decay of somatic and F+ coliphage, as well as infectious adenovirus.
Our results show that decay of coliphages and adenovirus was similar (p = 0.0794), indicating that both of these bacteriophage groups are adequate surrogates for decay of human adenoviruses. Overall, after 8 days the greatest log
reductions were observed when viruses were exposed to a combination of biotic and abiotic factors (2.92 ± 0.39, 4.48 ± 0.38, 3.40 ± 0.19 for somatic coliphages, F+ coliphages and adenovirus, respectively). Both, indigenous protozoa and ambient sunlight, were important contributors to decay of all three viruses, although the magnitude of that effect differed over time and across viral targets.
While all viruses studied decayed significantly faster (p < 0.0001) when exposed to ambient sunlight, somatic coliphages were particularly susceptible to sunlight irradiation suggesting a potentially different mechanism of UV damage compared to F+ coliphages and adenoviruses. Presence of indigenous protozoan communities was also a significant contributor (p value range: 0.0016 to < 0.0001) to decay of coliphages and adenovirus suggesting that this rarely studied biotic factor is an important driver of viral reductions in freshwater aquatic habitats.
PDF
