Use of bacterial spores in monitoring water quality and treatment.

Gerard N Stelma
Author Information
  1. Gerard N Stelma: US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Exposure Research Laboratory, Exposure Methods and Measurements Division, Microbial Exposure Branch, 26 West Martin Luther King Dr., Cincinnati, OH 45268, USA E-mail: stelma.gerard@epa.gov.

Abstract

Because Clostridium perfringens spores are both specific to sewage contamination and environmentally stable, they are considered as possible conservative indicators of human fecal contamination and possible surrogates for environmentally stable pathogens. This review discusses the reasons and summarizes methods for monitoring spores in water. Cultural methods are still preferred over qPCR for routine water quality monitoring because of their low costs. Membrane filter (MF) methods are preferred over the more laborious and less accurate most probable number methods. The most commonly used MF media are TSC medium and mCP medium. TSC normally allows higher recoveries than mCP. TSC produces fewer false-positive results than mCP; however, it does produce more false-negatives. Two newer methods have substantial potential, CP Chromo Select agar, which allows better recoveries and greater specificity than mCP, and the Fung double tube method, which creates anaerobic conditions and allows enumeration of colonies in tubes in 5-6 hours. Aerobic spores are not associated with fecal contamination but they can be surrogates for environmentally stable pathogens in monitoring water for treatment efficacy; Bacillus cereus spores are normally measured on nutrient agar by the MF method.

References

  1. J Appl Microbiol. 2010 Jun;108(6):1994-2002 [PMID: 19929952]
  2. Water Environ Res. 2007 Mar;79(3):279-86 [PMID: 17469659]
  3. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1993 Aug;59(8):2418-24 [PMID: 8368831]
  4. Can J Microbiol. 1988 Jan;34(1):78-9 [PMID: 2897874]
  5. J Water Pollut Control Fed. 1980 Feb;52(2):241-8 [PMID: 6245283]
  6. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1982 Nov;44(5):1144-9 [PMID: 6295278]
  7. J Microbiol Methods. 2011 Nov;87(2):189-94 [PMID: 21872622]
  8. Water Res. 2001 Oct;35(15):3758-61 [PMID: 11561641]
  9. Lett Appl Microbiol. 2015 Apr;60(4):367-71 [PMID: 25514882]
  10. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1985 Jun;49(6):1361-5 [PMID: 2990336]
  11. Lett Appl Microbiol. 2006 Apr;42(4):418-24 [PMID: 16599998]
  12. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1997 Apr;63(4):1598-601 [PMID: 9097455]
  13. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1980 Mar;39(3):588-96 [PMID: 6247974]
  14. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2005 Jun;71(6):3163-70 [PMID: 15933017]
  15. Appl Microbiol. 1971 Oct;22(4):688-92 [PMID: 4331774]
  16. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1979 Jan;37(1):55-66 [PMID: 216310]
  17. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2001 Sep;67(9):4382-4 [PMID: 11526053]
  18. J Food Prot. 1978 Aug;41(8):626-630 [PMID: 30795113]
  19. J Water Health. 2008 Dec;6(4):443-60 [PMID: 18401110]
  20. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2013 Dec;79(24):7654-61 [PMID: 24077714]
  21. Int J Food Microbiol. 2013 Oct 1;167(1):92-5 [PMID: 23816139]
  22. Environ Health Perspect. 2003 Jun;111(8):1102-9 [PMID: 12826481]
  23. Lett Appl Microbiol. 2006 May;42(5):438-44 [PMID: 16620200]
  24. Appl Microbiol. 1965 Jul;13:559-63 [PMID: 14339262]
  25. Environ Health. 2010 Oct 31;9:66 [PMID: 21040526]
  26. Appl Microbiol. 1962 May;10:193-9 [PMID: 13861594]
  27. Appl Microbiol. 1974 Mar;27(3):521-6 [PMID: 4363368]
  28. Water Sci Technol. 2001;43(12):201-4 [PMID: 11464756]
  29. Appl Microbiol. 1971 Mar;21(3):500-6 [PMID: 4324195]
  30. J Microbiol Methods. 2004 May;57(2):175-80 [PMID: 15063057]
  31. Lett Appl Microbiol. 1998 Dec;27(6):323-7 [PMID: 9871349]
  32. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2004 Dec;70(12):7269-76 [PMID: 15574926]
  33. Water Sci Technol. 2001;44(7):181-8 [PMID: 11724486]
  34. Zentralbl Bakteriol Orig A. 1973 Dec;225(2):343-5 [PMID: 4150067]

Grants

  1. EPA999999/Intramural EPA

MeSH Term

Bacillus
Clostridium perfringens
Spores, Bacterial
Water Microbiology
Water Purification
Water Quality

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0sporesmethodsmonitoringwatermCPcontaminationenvironmentallystableMFTSCallowspossiblefecalsurrogatespathogenspreferredqualitymediumnormallyrecoveriesagarmethodtreatmentClostridiumperfringensspecificsewageconsideredconservativeindicatorshumanreviewdiscussesreasonssummarizesCulturalstillqPCRroutinelowcostsMembranefilterlaboriouslessaccurateprobablenumbercommonlyusedmediahigherproducesfewerfalse-positiveresultshoweverproducefalse-negativesTwonewersubstantialpotentialCPChromoSelectbettergreaterspecificityFungdoubletubecreatesanaerobicconditionsenumerationcoloniestubes5-6hoursAerobicassociatedcanefficacyBacilluscereusmeasurednutrientUsebacterial

Similar Articles

Cited By