Recommendations following a multi-laboratory comparison of microbial source tracking methods
Microbial source tracking (MST) methods were evaluated in the Source Identification Protocol Project (SIPP), in which 27 laboratories compared methods to identify host sources of fecal pollution from blinded water samples containing either one or two different fecal types collected from California....
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Gespeichert in:
| Autor*in: |
Stewart, Jill R. [verfasserIn] |
|---|
| Format: |
E-Artikel |
|---|---|
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
| Erschienen: |
2013transfer abstract |
|---|
| Schlagwörter: |
|---|
| Umfang: |
10 |
|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
Enthalten in: Matches, mismatches and priorities of pathways from a climate-resilient development perspective in the mountains of Nepal - Pandey, Avash ELSEVIER, 2021, a journal of the International Association on Water Quality (IAWQ), Amsterdam [u.a.] |
|---|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:47 ; year:2013 ; number:18 ; day:15 ; month:11 ; pages:6829-6838 ; extent:10 |
| Links: |
|---|
| DOI / URN: |
10.1016/j.watres.2013.04.063 |
|---|
| Katalog-ID: |
ELV021577722 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | ELV021577722 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20230625133839.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 180603s2013 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1016/j.watres.2013.04.063 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a GBVA2013001000018.pica |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)ELV021577722 | ||
| 035 | |a (ELSEVIER)S0043-1354(13)00544-7 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 082 | 0 | |a 550 | |
| 082 | 0 | 4 | |a 550 |q DE-600 |
| 082 | 0 | 4 | |a 333.7 |a 320 |q VZ |
| 100 | 1 | |a Stewart, Jill R. |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Recommendations following a multi-laboratory comparison of microbial source tracking methods |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2013transfer abstract | |
| 300 | |a 10 | ||
| 336 | |a nicht spezifiziert |b zzz |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a nicht spezifiziert |b z |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a nicht spezifiziert |b zu |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 520 | |a Microbial source tracking (MST) methods were evaluated in the Source Identification Protocol Project (SIPP), in which 27 laboratories compared methods to identify host sources of fecal pollution from blinded water samples containing either one or two different fecal types collected from California. This paper details lessons learned from the SIPP study and makes recommendations to further advance the field of MST. Overall, results from the SIPP study demonstrated that methods are available that can correctly identify whether particular host sources including humans, cows and birds have contributed to contamination in a body of water. However, differences between laboratory protocols and data processing affected results and complicated interpretation of MST method performance in some cases. This was an issue particularly for samples that tested positive (non-zero C t values) but below the limits of quantification or detection of a PCR assay. Although false positives were observed, such samples in the SIPP study often contained the fecal pollution source that was being targeted, i.e., the samples were true positives. Given these results, and the fact that MST often requires detection of targets present in low concentrations, we propose that such samples be reported and identified in a unique category to facilitate data analysis and method comparisons. Important data can be lost when such samples are simply reported as positive or negative. Actionable thresholds were not derived in the SIPP study due to limitations that included geographic scope, age of samples, and difficulties interpreting low concentrations of target in environmental samples. Nevertheless, the results of the study support the use of MST for water management, especially to prioritize impaired waters in need of remediation. Future integration of MST data into quantitative microbial risk assessments and other models could allow managers to more efficiently protect public health based on site conditions. | ||
| 520 | |a Microbial source tracking (MST) methods were evaluated in the Source Identification Protocol Project (SIPP), in which 27 laboratories compared methods to identify host sources of fecal pollution from blinded water samples containing either one or two different fecal types collected from California. This paper details lessons learned from the SIPP study and makes recommendations to further advance the field of MST. Overall, results from the SIPP study demonstrated that methods are available that can correctly identify whether particular host sources including humans, cows and birds have contributed to contamination in a body of water. However, differences between laboratory protocols and data processing affected results and complicated interpretation of MST method performance in some cases. This was an issue particularly for samples that tested positive (non-zero C t values) but below the limits of quantification or detection of a PCR assay. Although false positives were observed, such samples in the SIPP study often contained the fecal pollution source that was being targeted, i.e., the samples were true positives. Given these results, and the fact that MST often requires detection of targets present in low concentrations, we propose that such samples be reported and identified in a unique category to facilitate data analysis and method comparisons. Important data can be lost when such samples are simply reported as positive or negative. Actionable thresholds were not derived in the SIPP study due to limitations that included geographic scope, age of samples, and difficulties interpreting low concentrations of target in environmental samples. Nevertheless, the results of the study support the use of MST for water management, especially to prioritize impaired waters in need of remediation. Future integration of MST data into quantitative microbial risk assessments and other models could allow managers to more efficiently protect public health based on site conditions. | ||
| 650 | 7 | |a Enterococcus |2 Elsevier | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Bacteroidales |2 Elsevier | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Microbial source tracking |2 Elsevier | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Water quality |2 Elsevier | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Coliform |2 Elsevier | |
| 650 | 7 | |a qPCR |2 Elsevier | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Boehm, Alexandria B. |4 oth | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Dubinsky, Eric A. |4 oth | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Fong, Theng-Theng |4 oth | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Goodwin, Kelly D. |4 oth | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Griffith, John F. |4 oth | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Noble, Rachel T. |4 oth | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Shanks, Orin C. |4 oth | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Vijayavel, Kannappan |4 oth | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Weisberg, Stephen B. |4 oth | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |n Elsevier Science |a Pandey, Avash ELSEVIER |t Matches, mismatches and priorities of pathways from a climate-resilient development perspective in the mountains of Nepal |d 2021 |d a journal of the International Association on Water Quality (IAWQ) |g Amsterdam [u.a.] |w (DE-627)ELV006716016 |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:47 |g year:2013 |g number:18 |g day:15 |g month:11 |g pages:6829-6838 |g extent:10 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2013.04.063 |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_U | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ELV | ||
| 912 | |a SYSFLAG_U | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 47 |j 2013 |e 18 |b 15 |c 1115 |h 6829-6838 |g 10 | ||
| 953 | |2 045F |a 550 | ||
| author_variant |
j r s jr jrs |
|---|---|
| matchkey_str |
stewartjillrboehmalexandriabdubinskyeric:2013----:eomnainfloigmliaoaoyoprsnfirba |
| hierarchy_sort_str |
2013transfer abstract |
| publishDate |
2013 |
| allfields |
10.1016/j.watres.2013.04.063 doi GBVA2013001000018.pica (DE-627)ELV021577722 (ELSEVIER)S0043-1354(13)00544-7 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 550 550 DE-600 333.7 320 VZ Stewart, Jill R. verfasserin aut Recommendations following a multi-laboratory comparison of microbial source tracking methods 2013transfer abstract 10 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier Microbial source tracking (MST) methods were evaluated in the Source Identification Protocol Project (SIPP), in which 27 laboratories compared methods to identify host sources of fecal pollution from blinded water samples containing either one or two different fecal types collected from California. This paper details lessons learned from the SIPP study and makes recommendations to further advance the field of MST. Overall, results from the SIPP study demonstrated that methods are available that can correctly identify whether particular host sources including humans, cows and birds have contributed to contamination in a body of water. However, differences between laboratory protocols and data processing affected results and complicated interpretation of MST method performance in some cases. This was an issue particularly for samples that tested positive (non-zero C t values) but below the limits of quantification or detection of a PCR assay. Although false positives were observed, such samples in the SIPP study often contained the fecal pollution source that was being targeted, i.e., the samples were true positives. Given these results, and the fact that MST often requires detection of targets present in low concentrations, we propose that such samples be reported and identified in a unique category to facilitate data analysis and method comparisons. Important data can be lost when such samples are simply reported as positive or negative. Actionable thresholds were not derived in the SIPP study due to limitations that included geographic scope, age of samples, and difficulties interpreting low concentrations of target in environmental samples. Nevertheless, the results of the study support the use of MST for water management, especially to prioritize impaired waters in need of remediation. Future integration of MST data into quantitative microbial risk assessments and other models could allow managers to more efficiently protect public health based on site conditions. Microbial source tracking (MST) methods were evaluated in the Source Identification Protocol Project (SIPP), in which 27 laboratories compared methods to identify host sources of fecal pollution from blinded water samples containing either one or two different fecal types collected from California. This paper details lessons learned from the SIPP study and makes recommendations to further advance the field of MST. Overall, results from the SIPP study demonstrated that methods are available that can correctly identify whether particular host sources including humans, cows and birds have contributed to contamination in a body of water. However, differences between laboratory protocols and data processing affected results and complicated interpretation of MST method performance in some cases. This was an issue particularly for samples that tested positive (non-zero C t values) but below the limits of quantification or detection of a PCR assay. Although false positives were observed, such samples in the SIPP study often contained the fecal pollution source that was being targeted, i.e., the samples were true positives. Given these results, and the fact that MST often requires detection of targets present in low concentrations, we propose that such samples be reported and identified in a unique category to facilitate data analysis and method comparisons. Important data can be lost when such samples are simply reported as positive or negative. Actionable thresholds were not derived in the SIPP study due to limitations that included geographic scope, age of samples, and difficulties interpreting low concentrations of target in environmental samples. Nevertheless, the results of the study support the use of MST for water management, especially to prioritize impaired waters in need of remediation. Future integration of MST data into quantitative microbial risk assessments and other models could allow managers to more efficiently protect public health based on site conditions. Enterococcus Elsevier Bacteroidales Elsevier Microbial source tracking Elsevier Water quality Elsevier Coliform Elsevier qPCR Elsevier Boehm, Alexandria B. oth Dubinsky, Eric A. oth Fong, Theng-Theng oth Goodwin, Kelly D. oth Griffith, John F. oth Noble, Rachel T. oth Shanks, Orin C. oth Vijayavel, Kannappan oth Weisberg, Stephen B. oth Enthalten in Elsevier Science Pandey, Avash ELSEVIER Matches, mismatches and priorities of pathways from a climate-resilient development perspective in the mountains of Nepal 2021 a journal of the International Association on Water Quality (IAWQ) Amsterdam [u.a.] (DE-627)ELV006716016 volume:47 year:2013 number:18 day:15 month:11 pages:6829-6838 extent:10 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2013.04.063 Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U AR 47 2013 18 15 1115 6829-6838 10 045F 550 |
| spelling |
10.1016/j.watres.2013.04.063 doi GBVA2013001000018.pica (DE-627)ELV021577722 (ELSEVIER)S0043-1354(13)00544-7 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 550 550 DE-600 333.7 320 VZ Stewart, Jill R. verfasserin aut Recommendations following a multi-laboratory comparison of microbial source tracking methods 2013transfer abstract 10 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier Microbial source tracking (MST) methods were evaluated in the Source Identification Protocol Project (SIPP), in which 27 laboratories compared methods to identify host sources of fecal pollution from blinded water samples containing either one or two different fecal types collected from California. This paper details lessons learned from the SIPP study and makes recommendations to further advance the field of MST. Overall, results from the SIPP study demonstrated that methods are available that can correctly identify whether particular host sources including humans, cows and birds have contributed to contamination in a body of water. However, differences between laboratory protocols and data processing affected results and complicated interpretation of MST method performance in some cases. This was an issue particularly for samples that tested positive (non-zero C t values) but below the limits of quantification or detection of a PCR assay. Although false positives were observed, such samples in the SIPP study often contained the fecal pollution source that was being targeted, i.e., the samples were true positives. Given these results, and the fact that MST often requires detection of targets present in low concentrations, we propose that such samples be reported and identified in a unique category to facilitate data analysis and method comparisons. Important data can be lost when such samples are simply reported as positive or negative. Actionable thresholds were not derived in the SIPP study due to limitations that included geographic scope, age of samples, and difficulties interpreting low concentrations of target in environmental samples. Nevertheless, the results of the study support the use of MST for water management, especially to prioritize impaired waters in need of remediation. Future integration of MST data into quantitative microbial risk assessments and other models could allow managers to more efficiently protect public health based on site conditions. Microbial source tracking (MST) methods were evaluated in the Source Identification Protocol Project (SIPP), in which 27 laboratories compared methods to identify host sources of fecal pollution from blinded water samples containing either one or two different fecal types collected from California. This paper details lessons learned from the SIPP study and makes recommendations to further advance the field of MST. Overall, results from the SIPP study demonstrated that methods are available that can correctly identify whether particular host sources including humans, cows and birds have contributed to contamination in a body of water. However, differences between laboratory protocols and data processing affected results and complicated interpretation of MST method performance in some cases. This was an issue particularly for samples that tested positive (non-zero C t values) but below the limits of quantification or detection of a PCR assay. Although false positives were observed, such samples in the SIPP study often contained the fecal pollution source that was being targeted, i.e., the samples were true positives. Given these results, and the fact that MST often requires detection of targets present in low concentrations, we propose that such samples be reported and identified in a unique category to facilitate data analysis and method comparisons. Important data can be lost when such samples are simply reported as positive or negative. Actionable thresholds were not derived in the SIPP study due to limitations that included geographic scope, age of samples, and difficulties interpreting low concentrations of target in environmental samples. Nevertheless, the results of the study support the use of MST for water management, especially to prioritize impaired waters in need of remediation. Future integration of MST data into quantitative microbial risk assessments and other models could allow managers to more efficiently protect public health based on site conditions. Enterococcus Elsevier Bacteroidales Elsevier Microbial source tracking Elsevier Water quality Elsevier Coliform Elsevier qPCR Elsevier Boehm, Alexandria B. oth Dubinsky, Eric A. oth Fong, Theng-Theng oth Goodwin, Kelly D. oth Griffith, John F. oth Noble, Rachel T. oth Shanks, Orin C. oth Vijayavel, Kannappan oth Weisberg, Stephen B. oth Enthalten in Elsevier Science Pandey, Avash ELSEVIER Matches, mismatches and priorities of pathways from a climate-resilient development perspective in the mountains of Nepal 2021 a journal of the International Association on Water Quality (IAWQ) Amsterdam [u.a.] (DE-627)ELV006716016 volume:47 year:2013 number:18 day:15 month:11 pages:6829-6838 extent:10 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2013.04.063 Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U AR 47 2013 18 15 1115 6829-6838 10 045F 550 |
| allfields_unstemmed |
10.1016/j.watres.2013.04.063 doi GBVA2013001000018.pica (DE-627)ELV021577722 (ELSEVIER)S0043-1354(13)00544-7 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 550 550 DE-600 333.7 320 VZ Stewart, Jill R. verfasserin aut Recommendations following a multi-laboratory comparison of microbial source tracking methods 2013transfer abstract 10 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier Microbial source tracking (MST) methods were evaluated in the Source Identification Protocol Project (SIPP), in which 27 laboratories compared methods to identify host sources of fecal pollution from blinded water samples containing either one or two different fecal types collected from California. This paper details lessons learned from the SIPP study and makes recommendations to further advance the field of MST. Overall, results from the SIPP study demonstrated that methods are available that can correctly identify whether particular host sources including humans, cows and birds have contributed to contamination in a body of water. However, differences between laboratory protocols and data processing affected results and complicated interpretation of MST method performance in some cases. This was an issue particularly for samples that tested positive (non-zero C t values) but below the limits of quantification or detection of a PCR assay. Although false positives were observed, such samples in the SIPP study often contained the fecal pollution source that was being targeted, i.e., the samples were true positives. Given these results, and the fact that MST often requires detection of targets present in low concentrations, we propose that such samples be reported and identified in a unique category to facilitate data analysis and method comparisons. Important data can be lost when such samples are simply reported as positive or negative. Actionable thresholds were not derived in the SIPP study due to limitations that included geographic scope, age of samples, and difficulties interpreting low concentrations of target in environmental samples. Nevertheless, the results of the study support the use of MST for water management, especially to prioritize impaired waters in need of remediation. Future integration of MST data into quantitative microbial risk assessments and other models could allow managers to more efficiently protect public health based on site conditions. Microbial source tracking (MST) methods were evaluated in the Source Identification Protocol Project (SIPP), in which 27 laboratories compared methods to identify host sources of fecal pollution from blinded water samples containing either one or two different fecal types collected from California. This paper details lessons learned from the SIPP study and makes recommendations to further advance the field of MST. Overall, results from the SIPP study demonstrated that methods are available that can correctly identify whether particular host sources including humans, cows and birds have contributed to contamination in a body of water. However, differences between laboratory protocols and data processing affected results and complicated interpretation of MST method performance in some cases. This was an issue particularly for samples that tested positive (non-zero C t values) but below the limits of quantification or detection of a PCR assay. Although false positives were observed, such samples in the SIPP study often contained the fecal pollution source that was being targeted, i.e., the samples were true positives. Given these results, and the fact that MST often requires detection of targets present in low concentrations, we propose that such samples be reported and identified in a unique category to facilitate data analysis and method comparisons. Important data can be lost when such samples are simply reported as positive or negative. Actionable thresholds were not derived in the SIPP study due to limitations that included geographic scope, age of samples, and difficulties interpreting low concentrations of target in environmental samples. Nevertheless, the results of the study support the use of MST for water management, especially to prioritize impaired waters in need of remediation. Future integration of MST data into quantitative microbial risk assessments and other models could allow managers to more efficiently protect public health based on site conditions. Enterococcus Elsevier Bacteroidales Elsevier Microbial source tracking Elsevier Water quality Elsevier Coliform Elsevier qPCR Elsevier Boehm, Alexandria B. oth Dubinsky, Eric A. oth Fong, Theng-Theng oth Goodwin, Kelly D. oth Griffith, John F. oth Noble, Rachel T. oth Shanks, Orin C. oth Vijayavel, Kannappan oth Weisberg, Stephen B. oth Enthalten in Elsevier Science Pandey, Avash ELSEVIER Matches, mismatches and priorities of pathways from a climate-resilient development perspective in the mountains of Nepal 2021 a journal of the International Association on Water Quality (IAWQ) Amsterdam [u.a.] (DE-627)ELV006716016 volume:47 year:2013 number:18 day:15 month:11 pages:6829-6838 extent:10 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2013.04.063 Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U AR 47 2013 18 15 1115 6829-6838 10 045F 550 |
| allfieldsGer |
10.1016/j.watres.2013.04.063 doi GBVA2013001000018.pica (DE-627)ELV021577722 (ELSEVIER)S0043-1354(13)00544-7 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 550 550 DE-600 333.7 320 VZ Stewart, Jill R. verfasserin aut Recommendations following a multi-laboratory comparison of microbial source tracking methods 2013transfer abstract 10 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier Microbial source tracking (MST) methods were evaluated in the Source Identification Protocol Project (SIPP), in which 27 laboratories compared methods to identify host sources of fecal pollution from blinded water samples containing either one or two different fecal types collected from California. This paper details lessons learned from the SIPP study and makes recommendations to further advance the field of MST. Overall, results from the SIPP study demonstrated that methods are available that can correctly identify whether particular host sources including humans, cows and birds have contributed to contamination in a body of water. However, differences between laboratory protocols and data processing affected results and complicated interpretation of MST method performance in some cases. This was an issue particularly for samples that tested positive (non-zero C t values) but below the limits of quantification or detection of a PCR assay. Although false positives were observed, such samples in the SIPP study often contained the fecal pollution source that was being targeted, i.e., the samples were true positives. Given these results, and the fact that MST often requires detection of targets present in low concentrations, we propose that such samples be reported and identified in a unique category to facilitate data analysis and method comparisons. Important data can be lost when such samples are simply reported as positive or negative. Actionable thresholds were not derived in the SIPP study due to limitations that included geographic scope, age of samples, and difficulties interpreting low concentrations of target in environmental samples. Nevertheless, the results of the study support the use of MST for water management, especially to prioritize impaired waters in need of remediation. Future integration of MST data into quantitative microbial risk assessments and other models could allow managers to more efficiently protect public health based on site conditions. Microbial source tracking (MST) methods were evaluated in the Source Identification Protocol Project (SIPP), in which 27 laboratories compared methods to identify host sources of fecal pollution from blinded water samples containing either one or two different fecal types collected from California. This paper details lessons learned from the SIPP study and makes recommendations to further advance the field of MST. Overall, results from the SIPP study demonstrated that methods are available that can correctly identify whether particular host sources including humans, cows and birds have contributed to contamination in a body of water. However, differences between laboratory protocols and data processing affected results and complicated interpretation of MST method performance in some cases. This was an issue particularly for samples that tested positive (non-zero C t values) but below the limits of quantification or detection of a PCR assay. Although false positives were observed, such samples in the SIPP study often contained the fecal pollution source that was being targeted, i.e., the samples were true positives. Given these results, and the fact that MST often requires detection of targets present in low concentrations, we propose that such samples be reported and identified in a unique category to facilitate data analysis and method comparisons. Important data can be lost when such samples are simply reported as positive or negative. Actionable thresholds were not derived in the SIPP study due to limitations that included geographic scope, age of samples, and difficulties interpreting low concentrations of target in environmental samples. Nevertheless, the results of the study support the use of MST for water management, especially to prioritize impaired waters in need of remediation. Future integration of MST data into quantitative microbial risk assessments and other models could allow managers to more efficiently protect public health based on site conditions. Enterococcus Elsevier Bacteroidales Elsevier Microbial source tracking Elsevier Water quality Elsevier Coliform Elsevier qPCR Elsevier Boehm, Alexandria B. oth Dubinsky, Eric A. oth Fong, Theng-Theng oth Goodwin, Kelly D. oth Griffith, John F. oth Noble, Rachel T. oth Shanks, Orin C. oth Vijayavel, Kannappan oth Weisberg, Stephen B. oth Enthalten in Elsevier Science Pandey, Avash ELSEVIER Matches, mismatches and priorities of pathways from a climate-resilient development perspective in the mountains of Nepal 2021 a journal of the International Association on Water Quality (IAWQ) Amsterdam [u.a.] (DE-627)ELV006716016 volume:47 year:2013 number:18 day:15 month:11 pages:6829-6838 extent:10 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2013.04.063 Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U AR 47 2013 18 15 1115 6829-6838 10 045F 550 |
| allfieldsSound |
10.1016/j.watres.2013.04.063 doi GBVA2013001000018.pica (DE-627)ELV021577722 (ELSEVIER)S0043-1354(13)00544-7 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 550 550 DE-600 333.7 320 VZ Stewart, Jill R. verfasserin aut Recommendations following a multi-laboratory comparison of microbial source tracking methods 2013transfer abstract 10 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier Microbial source tracking (MST) methods were evaluated in the Source Identification Protocol Project (SIPP), in which 27 laboratories compared methods to identify host sources of fecal pollution from blinded water samples containing either one or two different fecal types collected from California. This paper details lessons learned from the SIPP study and makes recommendations to further advance the field of MST. Overall, results from the SIPP study demonstrated that methods are available that can correctly identify whether particular host sources including humans, cows and birds have contributed to contamination in a body of water. However, differences between laboratory protocols and data processing affected results and complicated interpretation of MST method performance in some cases. This was an issue particularly for samples that tested positive (non-zero C t values) but below the limits of quantification or detection of a PCR assay. Although false positives were observed, such samples in the SIPP study often contained the fecal pollution source that was being targeted, i.e., the samples were true positives. Given these results, and the fact that MST often requires detection of targets present in low concentrations, we propose that such samples be reported and identified in a unique category to facilitate data analysis and method comparisons. Important data can be lost when such samples are simply reported as positive or negative. Actionable thresholds were not derived in the SIPP study due to limitations that included geographic scope, age of samples, and difficulties interpreting low concentrations of target in environmental samples. Nevertheless, the results of the study support the use of MST for water management, especially to prioritize impaired waters in need of remediation. Future integration of MST data into quantitative microbial risk assessments and other models could allow managers to more efficiently protect public health based on site conditions. Microbial source tracking (MST) methods were evaluated in the Source Identification Protocol Project (SIPP), in which 27 laboratories compared methods to identify host sources of fecal pollution from blinded water samples containing either one or two different fecal types collected from California. This paper details lessons learned from the SIPP study and makes recommendations to further advance the field of MST. Overall, results from the SIPP study demonstrated that methods are available that can correctly identify whether particular host sources including humans, cows and birds have contributed to contamination in a body of water. However, differences between laboratory protocols and data processing affected results and complicated interpretation of MST method performance in some cases. This was an issue particularly for samples that tested positive (non-zero C t values) but below the limits of quantification or detection of a PCR assay. Although false positives were observed, such samples in the SIPP study often contained the fecal pollution source that was being targeted, i.e., the samples were true positives. Given these results, and the fact that MST often requires detection of targets present in low concentrations, we propose that such samples be reported and identified in a unique category to facilitate data analysis and method comparisons. Important data can be lost when such samples are simply reported as positive or negative. Actionable thresholds were not derived in the SIPP study due to limitations that included geographic scope, age of samples, and difficulties interpreting low concentrations of target in environmental samples. Nevertheless, the results of the study support the use of MST for water management, especially to prioritize impaired waters in need of remediation. Future integration of MST data into quantitative microbial risk assessments and other models could allow managers to more efficiently protect public health based on site conditions. Enterococcus Elsevier Bacteroidales Elsevier Microbial source tracking Elsevier Water quality Elsevier Coliform Elsevier qPCR Elsevier Boehm, Alexandria B. oth Dubinsky, Eric A. oth Fong, Theng-Theng oth Goodwin, Kelly D. oth Griffith, John F. oth Noble, Rachel T. oth Shanks, Orin C. oth Vijayavel, Kannappan oth Weisberg, Stephen B. oth Enthalten in Elsevier Science Pandey, Avash ELSEVIER Matches, mismatches and priorities of pathways from a climate-resilient development perspective in the mountains of Nepal 2021 a journal of the International Association on Water Quality (IAWQ) Amsterdam [u.a.] (DE-627)ELV006716016 volume:47 year:2013 number:18 day:15 month:11 pages:6829-6838 extent:10 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2013.04.063 Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U AR 47 2013 18 15 1115 6829-6838 10 045F 550 |
| language |
English |
| source |
Enthalten in Matches, mismatches and priorities of pathways from a climate-resilient development perspective in the mountains of Nepal Amsterdam [u.a.] volume:47 year:2013 number:18 day:15 month:11 pages:6829-6838 extent:10 |
| sourceStr |
Enthalten in Matches, mismatches and priorities of pathways from a climate-resilient development perspective in the mountains of Nepal Amsterdam [u.a.] volume:47 year:2013 number:18 day:15 month:11 pages:6829-6838 extent:10 |
| format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
| institution |
findex.gbv.de |
| topic_facet |
Enterococcus Bacteroidales Microbial source tracking Water quality Coliform qPCR |
| dewey-raw |
550 |
| isfreeaccess_bool |
false |
| container_title |
Matches, mismatches and priorities of pathways from a climate-resilient development perspective in the mountains of Nepal |
| authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Stewart, Jill R. @@aut@@ Boehm, Alexandria B. @@oth@@ Dubinsky, Eric A. @@oth@@ Fong, Theng-Theng @@oth@@ Goodwin, Kelly D. @@oth@@ Griffith, John F. @@oth@@ Noble, Rachel T. @@oth@@ Shanks, Orin C. @@oth@@ Vijayavel, Kannappan @@oth@@ Weisberg, Stephen B. @@oth@@ |
| publishDateDaySort_date |
2013-01-15T00:00:00Z |
| hierarchy_top_id |
ELV006716016 |
| dewey-sort |
3550 |
| id |
ELV021577722 |
| language_de |
englisch |
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">ELV021577722</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230625133839.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">180603s2013 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1016/j.watres.2013.04.063</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="028" ind1="5" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">GBVA2013001000018.pica</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)ELV021577722</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(ELSEVIER)S0043-1354(13)00544-7</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">550</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">550</subfield><subfield code="q">DE-600</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">333.7</subfield><subfield code="a">320</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Stewart, Jill R.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Recommendations following a multi-laboratory comparison of microbial source tracking methods</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2013transfer abstract</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zzz</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">z</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zu</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Microbial source tracking (MST) methods were evaluated in the Source Identification Protocol Project (SIPP), in which 27 laboratories compared methods to identify host sources of fecal pollution from blinded water samples containing either one or two different fecal types collected from California. This paper details lessons learned from the SIPP study and makes recommendations to further advance the field of MST. Overall, results from the SIPP study demonstrated that methods are available that can correctly identify whether particular host sources including humans, cows and birds have contributed to contamination in a body of water. However, differences between laboratory protocols and data processing affected results and complicated interpretation of MST method performance in some cases. This was an issue particularly for samples that tested positive (non-zero C t values) but below the limits of quantification or detection of a PCR assay. Although false positives were observed, such samples in the SIPP study often contained the fecal pollution source that was being targeted, i.e., the samples were true positives. Given these results, and the fact that MST often requires detection of targets present in low concentrations, we propose that such samples be reported and identified in a unique category to facilitate data analysis and method comparisons. Important data can be lost when such samples are simply reported as positive or negative. Actionable thresholds were not derived in the SIPP study due to limitations that included geographic scope, age of samples, and difficulties interpreting low concentrations of target in environmental samples. Nevertheless, the results of the study support the use of MST for water management, especially to prioritize impaired waters in need of remediation. Future integration of MST data into quantitative microbial risk assessments and other models could allow managers to more efficiently protect public health based on site conditions.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Microbial source tracking (MST) methods were evaluated in the Source Identification Protocol Project (SIPP), in which 27 laboratories compared methods to identify host sources of fecal pollution from blinded water samples containing either one or two different fecal types collected from California. This paper details lessons learned from the SIPP study and makes recommendations to further advance the field of MST. Overall, results from the SIPP study demonstrated that methods are available that can correctly identify whether particular host sources including humans, cows and birds have contributed to contamination in a body of water. However, differences between laboratory protocols and data processing affected results and complicated interpretation of MST method performance in some cases. This was an issue particularly for samples that tested positive (non-zero C t values) but below the limits of quantification or detection of a PCR assay. Although false positives were observed, such samples in the SIPP study often contained the fecal pollution source that was being targeted, i.e., the samples were true positives. Given these results, and the fact that MST often requires detection of targets present in low concentrations, we propose that such samples be reported and identified in a unique category to facilitate data analysis and method comparisons. Important data can be lost when such samples are simply reported as positive or negative. Actionable thresholds were not derived in the SIPP study due to limitations that included geographic scope, age of samples, and difficulties interpreting low concentrations of target in environmental samples. Nevertheless, the results of the study support the use of MST for water management, especially to prioritize impaired waters in need of remediation. Future integration of MST data into quantitative microbial risk assessments and other models could allow managers to more efficiently protect public health based on site conditions.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Enterococcus</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Bacteroidales</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Microbial source tracking</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Water quality</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Coliform</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">qPCR</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Boehm, Alexandria B.</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Dubinsky, Eric A.</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Fong, Theng-Theng</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Goodwin, Kelly D.</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Griffith, John F.</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Noble, Rachel T.</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Shanks, Orin C.</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Vijayavel, Kannappan</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Weisberg, Stephen B.</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="n">Elsevier Science</subfield><subfield code="a">Pandey, Avash ELSEVIER</subfield><subfield code="t">Matches, mismatches and priorities of pathways from a climate-resilient development perspective in the mountains of Nepal</subfield><subfield code="d">2021</subfield><subfield code="d">a journal of the International Association on Water Quality (IAWQ)</subfield><subfield code="g">Amsterdam [u.a.]</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)ELV006716016</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:47</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2013</subfield><subfield code="g">number:18</subfield><subfield code="g">day:15</subfield><subfield code="g">month:11</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:6829-6838</subfield><subfield code="g">extent:10</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2013.04.063</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ELV</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">47</subfield><subfield code="j">2013</subfield><subfield code="e">18</subfield><subfield code="b">15</subfield><subfield code="c">1115</subfield><subfield code="h">6829-6838</subfield><subfield code="g">10</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="953" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="2">045F</subfield><subfield code="a">550</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| author |
Stewart, Jill R. |
| spellingShingle |
Stewart, Jill R. ddc 550 ddc 333.7 Elsevier Enterococcus Elsevier Bacteroidales Elsevier Microbial source tracking Elsevier Water quality Elsevier Coliform Elsevier qPCR Recommendations following a multi-laboratory comparison of microbial source tracking methods |
| authorStr |
Stewart, Jill R. |
| ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)ELV006716016 |
| format |
electronic Article |
| dewey-ones |
550 - Earth sciences 333 - Economics of land & energy 320 - Political science |
| delete_txt_mv |
keep |
| author_role |
aut |
| collection |
elsevier |
| remote_str |
true |
| illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
| topic_title |
550 550 DE-600 333.7 320 VZ Recommendations following a multi-laboratory comparison of microbial source tracking methods Enterococcus Elsevier Bacteroidales Elsevier Microbial source tracking Elsevier Water quality Elsevier Coliform Elsevier qPCR Elsevier |
| topic |
ddc 550 ddc 333.7 Elsevier Enterococcus Elsevier Bacteroidales Elsevier Microbial source tracking Elsevier Water quality Elsevier Coliform Elsevier qPCR |
| topic_unstemmed |
ddc 550 ddc 333.7 Elsevier Enterococcus Elsevier Bacteroidales Elsevier Microbial source tracking Elsevier Water quality Elsevier Coliform Elsevier qPCR |
| topic_browse |
ddc 550 ddc 333.7 Elsevier Enterococcus Elsevier Bacteroidales Elsevier Microbial source tracking Elsevier Water quality Elsevier Coliform Elsevier qPCR |
| format_facet |
Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource |
| format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
| carriertype_str_mv |
zu |
| author2_variant |
a b b ab abb e a d ea ead t t f ttf k d g kd kdg j f g jf jfg r t n rt rtn o c s oc ocs k v kv s b w sb sbw |
| hierarchy_parent_title |
Matches, mismatches and priorities of pathways from a climate-resilient development perspective in the mountains of Nepal |
| hierarchy_parent_id |
ELV006716016 |
| dewey-tens |
550 - Earth sciences & geology 330 - Economics 320 - Political science |
| hierarchy_top_title |
Matches, mismatches and priorities of pathways from a climate-resilient development perspective in the mountains of Nepal |
| isfreeaccess_txt |
false |
| familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)ELV006716016 |
| title |
Recommendations following a multi-laboratory comparison of microbial source tracking methods |
| ctrlnum |
(DE-627)ELV021577722 (ELSEVIER)S0043-1354(13)00544-7 |
| title_full |
Recommendations following a multi-laboratory comparison of microbial source tracking methods |
| author_sort |
Stewart, Jill R. |
| journal |
Matches, mismatches and priorities of pathways from a climate-resilient development perspective in the mountains of Nepal |
| journalStr |
Matches, mismatches and priorities of pathways from a climate-resilient development perspective in the mountains of Nepal |
| lang_code |
eng |
| isOA_bool |
false |
| dewey-hundreds |
500 - Science 300 - Social sciences |
| recordtype |
marc |
| publishDateSort |
2013 |
| contenttype_str_mv |
zzz |
| container_start_page |
6829 |
| author_browse |
Stewart, Jill R. |
| container_volume |
47 |
| physical |
10 |
| class |
550 550 DE-600 333.7 320 VZ |
| format_se |
Elektronische Aufsätze |
| author-letter |
Stewart, Jill R. |
| doi_str_mv |
10.1016/j.watres.2013.04.063 |
| dewey-full |
550 333.7 320 |
| title_sort |
recommendations following a multi-laboratory comparison of microbial source tracking methods |
| title_auth |
Recommendations following a multi-laboratory comparison of microbial source tracking methods |
| abstract |
Microbial source tracking (MST) methods were evaluated in the Source Identification Protocol Project (SIPP), in which 27 laboratories compared methods to identify host sources of fecal pollution from blinded water samples containing either one or two different fecal types collected from California. This paper details lessons learned from the SIPP study and makes recommendations to further advance the field of MST. Overall, results from the SIPP study demonstrated that methods are available that can correctly identify whether particular host sources including humans, cows and birds have contributed to contamination in a body of water. However, differences between laboratory protocols and data processing affected results and complicated interpretation of MST method performance in some cases. This was an issue particularly for samples that tested positive (non-zero C t values) but below the limits of quantification or detection of a PCR assay. Although false positives were observed, such samples in the SIPP study often contained the fecal pollution source that was being targeted, i.e., the samples were true positives. Given these results, and the fact that MST often requires detection of targets present in low concentrations, we propose that such samples be reported and identified in a unique category to facilitate data analysis and method comparisons. Important data can be lost when such samples are simply reported as positive or negative. Actionable thresholds were not derived in the SIPP study due to limitations that included geographic scope, age of samples, and difficulties interpreting low concentrations of target in environmental samples. Nevertheless, the results of the study support the use of MST for water management, especially to prioritize impaired waters in need of remediation. Future integration of MST data into quantitative microbial risk assessments and other models could allow managers to more efficiently protect public health based on site conditions. |
| abstractGer |
Microbial source tracking (MST) methods were evaluated in the Source Identification Protocol Project (SIPP), in which 27 laboratories compared methods to identify host sources of fecal pollution from blinded water samples containing either one or two different fecal types collected from California. This paper details lessons learned from the SIPP study and makes recommendations to further advance the field of MST. Overall, results from the SIPP study demonstrated that methods are available that can correctly identify whether particular host sources including humans, cows and birds have contributed to contamination in a body of water. However, differences between laboratory protocols and data processing affected results and complicated interpretation of MST method performance in some cases. This was an issue particularly for samples that tested positive (non-zero C t values) but below the limits of quantification or detection of a PCR assay. Although false positives were observed, such samples in the SIPP study often contained the fecal pollution source that was being targeted, i.e., the samples were true positives. Given these results, and the fact that MST often requires detection of targets present in low concentrations, we propose that such samples be reported and identified in a unique category to facilitate data analysis and method comparisons. Important data can be lost when such samples are simply reported as positive or negative. Actionable thresholds were not derived in the SIPP study due to limitations that included geographic scope, age of samples, and difficulties interpreting low concentrations of target in environmental samples. Nevertheless, the results of the study support the use of MST for water management, especially to prioritize impaired waters in need of remediation. Future integration of MST data into quantitative microbial risk assessments and other models could allow managers to more efficiently protect public health based on site conditions. |
| abstract_unstemmed |
Microbial source tracking (MST) methods were evaluated in the Source Identification Protocol Project (SIPP), in which 27 laboratories compared methods to identify host sources of fecal pollution from blinded water samples containing either one or two different fecal types collected from California. This paper details lessons learned from the SIPP study and makes recommendations to further advance the field of MST. Overall, results from the SIPP study demonstrated that methods are available that can correctly identify whether particular host sources including humans, cows and birds have contributed to contamination in a body of water. However, differences between laboratory protocols and data processing affected results and complicated interpretation of MST method performance in some cases. This was an issue particularly for samples that tested positive (non-zero C t values) but below the limits of quantification or detection of a PCR assay. Although false positives were observed, such samples in the SIPP study often contained the fecal pollution source that was being targeted, i.e., the samples were true positives. Given these results, and the fact that MST often requires detection of targets present in low concentrations, we propose that such samples be reported and identified in a unique category to facilitate data analysis and method comparisons. Important data can be lost when such samples are simply reported as positive or negative. Actionable thresholds were not derived in the SIPP study due to limitations that included geographic scope, age of samples, and difficulties interpreting low concentrations of target in environmental samples. Nevertheless, the results of the study support the use of MST for water management, especially to prioritize impaired waters in need of remediation. Future integration of MST data into quantitative microbial risk assessments and other models could allow managers to more efficiently protect public health based on site conditions. |
| collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U |
| container_issue |
18 |
| title_short |
Recommendations following a multi-laboratory comparison of microbial source tracking methods |
| url |
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2013.04.063 |
| remote_bool |
true |
| author2 |
Boehm, Alexandria B. Dubinsky, Eric A. Fong, Theng-Theng Goodwin, Kelly D. Griffith, John F. Noble, Rachel T. Shanks, Orin C. Vijayavel, Kannappan Weisberg, Stephen B. |
| author2Str |
Boehm, Alexandria B. Dubinsky, Eric A. Fong, Theng-Theng Goodwin, Kelly D. Griffith, John F. Noble, Rachel T. Shanks, Orin C. Vijayavel, Kannappan Weisberg, Stephen B. |
| ppnlink |
ELV006716016 |
| mediatype_str_mv |
z |
| isOA_txt |
false |
| hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
| author2_role |
oth oth oth oth oth oth oth oth oth |
| doi_str |
10.1016/j.watres.2013.04.063 |
| up_date |
2024-07-06T19:59:37.893Z |
| _version_ |
1803861075317227520 |
| fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">ELV021577722</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230625133839.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">180603s2013 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1016/j.watres.2013.04.063</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="028" ind1="5" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">GBVA2013001000018.pica</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)ELV021577722</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(ELSEVIER)S0043-1354(13)00544-7</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">550</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">550</subfield><subfield code="q">DE-600</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">333.7</subfield><subfield code="a">320</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Stewart, Jill R.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Recommendations following a multi-laboratory comparison of microbial source tracking methods</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2013transfer abstract</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zzz</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">z</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zu</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Microbial source tracking (MST) methods were evaluated in the Source Identification Protocol Project (SIPP), in which 27 laboratories compared methods to identify host sources of fecal pollution from blinded water samples containing either one or two different fecal types collected from California. This paper details lessons learned from the SIPP study and makes recommendations to further advance the field of MST. Overall, results from the SIPP study demonstrated that methods are available that can correctly identify whether particular host sources including humans, cows and birds have contributed to contamination in a body of water. However, differences between laboratory protocols and data processing affected results and complicated interpretation of MST method performance in some cases. This was an issue particularly for samples that tested positive (non-zero C t values) but below the limits of quantification or detection of a PCR assay. Although false positives were observed, such samples in the SIPP study often contained the fecal pollution source that was being targeted, i.e., the samples were true positives. Given these results, and the fact that MST often requires detection of targets present in low concentrations, we propose that such samples be reported and identified in a unique category to facilitate data analysis and method comparisons. Important data can be lost when such samples are simply reported as positive or negative. Actionable thresholds were not derived in the SIPP study due to limitations that included geographic scope, age of samples, and difficulties interpreting low concentrations of target in environmental samples. Nevertheless, the results of the study support the use of MST for water management, especially to prioritize impaired waters in need of remediation. Future integration of MST data into quantitative microbial risk assessments and other models could allow managers to more efficiently protect public health based on site conditions.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Microbial source tracking (MST) methods were evaluated in the Source Identification Protocol Project (SIPP), in which 27 laboratories compared methods to identify host sources of fecal pollution from blinded water samples containing either one or two different fecal types collected from California. This paper details lessons learned from the SIPP study and makes recommendations to further advance the field of MST. Overall, results from the SIPP study demonstrated that methods are available that can correctly identify whether particular host sources including humans, cows and birds have contributed to contamination in a body of water. However, differences between laboratory protocols and data processing affected results and complicated interpretation of MST method performance in some cases. This was an issue particularly for samples that tested positive (non-zero C t values) but below the limits of quantification or detection of a PCR assay. Although false positives were observed, such samples in the SIPP study often contained the fecal pollution source that was being targeted, i.e., the samples were true positives. Given these results, and the fact that MST often requires detection of targets present in low concentrations, we propose that such samples be reported and identified in a unique category to facilitate data analysis and method comparisons. Important data can be lost when such samples are simply reported as positive or negative. Actionable thresholds were not derived in the SIPP study due to limitations that included geographic scope, age of samples, and difficulties interpreting low concentrations of target in environmental samples. Nevertheless, the results of the study support the use of MST for water management, especially to prioritize impaired waters in need of remediation. Future integration of MST data into quantitative microbial risk assessments and other models could allow managers to more efficiently protect public health based on site conditions.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Enterococcus</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Bacteroidales</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Microbial source tracking</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Water quality</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Coliform</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">qPCR</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Boehm, Alexandria B.</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Dubinsky, Eric A.</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Fong, Theng-Theng</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Goodwin, Kelly D.</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Griffith, John F.</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Noble, Rachel T.</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Shanks, Orin C.</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Vijayavel, Kannappan</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Weisberg, Stephen B.</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="n">Elsevier Science</subfield><subfield code="a">Pandey, Avash ELSEVIER</subfield><subfield code="t">Matches, mismatches and priorities of pathways from a climate-resilient development perspective in the mountains of Nepal</subfield><subfield code="d">2021</subfield><subfield code="d">a journal of the International Association on Water Quality (IAWQ)</subfield><subfield code="g">Amsterdam [u.a.]</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)ELV006716016</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:47</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2013</subfield><subfield code="g">number:18</subfield><subfield code="g">day:15</subfield><subfield code="g">month:11</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:6829-6838</subfield><subfield code="g">extent:10</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2013.04.063</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ELV</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">47</subfield><subfield code="j">2013</subfield><subfield code="e">18</subfield><subfield code="b">15</subfield><subfield code="c">1115</subfield><subfield code="h">6829-6838</subfield><subfield code="g">10</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="953" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="2">045F</subfield><subfield code="a">550</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| score |
7.400346 |