Evaluation of multiple laboratory performance and variability in analysis of recreational freshwaters by a rapid Escherichia coli qPCR method (Draft Method C).

There is interest in the application of rapid quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) methods for recreational freshwater quality monitoring of the fecal indicator bacteria Escherichia coli (E. coli). In this study we determined the performance of 21 laboratories in meeting proposed, standardized data quality acceptance (QA) criteria and the variability of target gene copy estimates from these laboratories in analyses of 18 shared surface water samples by a draft qPCR method developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for E. coli. The participating laboratories ranged from academic and government laboratories with more extensive qPCR experience to "new" water quality and public health laboratories with relatively little previous experience in most cases. Failures to meet QA criteria for the method were observed in 24% of the total 376 test sample analyses. Of these failures, 39% came from two of the "new" laboratories. Likely factors contributing to QA failures included deviations in recommended procedures for the storage and preparation of reference and control materials. A master standard curve calibration model was also found to give lower overall variability in log10 target gene copy estimates than the delta-delta Ct (ΔΔCt) calibration model used in previous EPA qPCR methods. However, differences between the mean estimates from the two models were not significant and variability between laboratories was the greatest contributor to overall method variability in either case. Study findings demonstrate the technical feasibility of multiple laboratories implementing this or other qPCR water quality monitoring methods with similar data quality acceptance criteria but suggest that additional practice and/or assistance may be valuable, even for some more generally experienced qPCR laboratories. Special attention should be placed on providing and following explicit guidance on the preparation, storage and handling of reference and control materials.

Standardized data quality acceptance criteria for a rapid Escherichia coli qPCR method (Draft Method C) for water quality monitoring at recreational beaches.

There is growing interest in the application of rapid quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) and other PCR-based methods for recreational water quality monitoring and management programs. This interest has strengthened given the publication of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-validated qPCR methods for enterococci fecal indicator bacteria (FIB) and has extended to similar methods for Escherichia coli (E. coli) FIB. Implementation of qPCR-based methods in monitoring programs can be facilitated by confidence in the quality of the data produced by these methods. Data quality can be determined through the establishment of a series of specifications that should reflect good laboratory practice. Ideally, these specifications will also account for the typical variability of data coming from multiple users of the method. This study developed proposed standardized data quality acceptance criteria that were established for important calibration model parameters and/or controls from a new qPCR method for E. coli (EPA Draft Method C) based upon data that was generated by 21 laboratories. Each laboratory followed a standardized protocol utilizing the same prescribed reagents and reference and control materials. After removal of outliers, statistical modeling based on a hierarchical Bayesian method was used to establish metrics for assay standard curve slope, intercept and lower limit of quantification that included between-laboratory, replicate testing within laboratory, and random error variability. A nested analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to establish metrics for calibrator/positive control, negative control, and replicate sample analysis data. These data acceptance criteria should help those who may evaluate the technical quality of future findings from the method, as well as those who might use the method in the future. Furthermore, these benchmarks and the approaches described for determining them may be helpful to method users seeking to establish comparable laboratory-specific criteria if changes in the reference and/or control materials must be made.

Comparison of two laboratory methods for the determination of biomethane potential of organic feedstocks.

The increased interest in anaerobic digestion systems has led to the increased need for laboratories to conduct biomethane potential (BMP) to determine the possible usefulness of various feedstocks. There is currently no standard method, but two well established methods have emerged as standardized methods for BMP testing. These two methods are the Automated Methane Potential Testing System, or AMPTS and the German DIN standard method using eudiometers. While these are widely-used, there have been no comparison of how these systems relate to each other in terms of BMP results for identical feedstocks. This study compared the BMP results for ten feedstocks using both the AMPTS and DIN methods to see if the results can be directly related. Results suggest that the methods provide different BMP results for 8 of the ten tested feedstock (p<0.05). Each method has advantages in terms of using it for BMPs, but overall results suggest that users of these methods should be aware of method differences when comparing results between methods or labs. For those interested in determining BMPs for larger-scale projects they should choose a testing facility that has experience with both methods and understands the differences in results between methods. While both methods can provide valuable information, it is important to be cautious in interpreting the results of these methods when compared to each other and likely the many in-house methods that various labs have developed.

Microbes in Beach Sands: Integrating Environment, Ecology and Public Health.

Beach sand is a habitat that supports many microbes, including viruses, bacteria, fungi and protozoa (micropsammon). The apparently inhospitable conditions of beach sand environments belie the thriving communities found there. Physical factors, such as water availability and protection from insolation; biological factors, such as competition, predation, and biofilm formation; and nutrient availability all contribute to the characteristics of the micropsammon. Sand microbial communities include autochthonous species/phylotypes indigenous to the environment. Allochthonous microbes, including fecal indicator bacteria (FIB) and waterborne pathogens, are deposited via waves, runoff, air, or animals. The fate of these microbes ranges from death, to transient persistence and/or replication, to establishment of thriving populations (naturalization) and integration in the autochthonous community. Transport of the micropsammon within the habitat occurs both horizontally across the beach, and vertically from the sand surface and ground water table, as well as at various scales including interstitial flow within sand pores, sediment transport for particle-associated microbes, and the large-scale processes of wave action and terrestrial runoff. The concept of beach sand as a microbial habitat and reservoir of FIB and pathogens has begun to influence our thinking about human health effects associated with sand exposure and recreational water use. A variety of pathogens have been reported from beach sands, and recent epidemiology studies have found some evidence of health risks associated with sand exposure. Persistent or replicating populations of FIB and enteric pathogens have consequences for watershed/beach management strategies and regulatory standards for safe beaches. This review summarizes our understanding of the community structure, ecology, fate, transport, and public health implications of microbes in beach sand. It concludes with recommendations for future work in this vastly under-studied area.