Yussi M. Palacios Delgado , Maghfira Saifuddaolah , Rebekah Henry , Kerrie Burge , David Thomas McCarthy , S. Fiona Barker , Christelle Schang , Vinaina Waqa , Brandon Winfrey , Karin Leder
{"title":"评估分析方法,以便在粪便污染监测和评估中做出更明智的决策","authors":"Yussi M. Palacios Delgado , Maghfira Saifuddaolah , Rebekah Henry , Kerrie Burge , David Thomas McCarthy , S. Fiona Barker , Christelle Schang , Vinaina Waqa , Brandon Winfrey , Karin Leder","doi":"10.1016/j.watres.2025.123207","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Quantification of faecal indicator organism (FIO) is essential for surveillance monitoring, performance compliance and public health interventions. IDEXX's automated FIO detection technique, TECTA<sup>TM</sup>, and IDEXX Colilert offer greater efficiency than traditional methods but have not been critically compared across diverse levels of faecal contamination or evaluated against key practical requirements and cost factors. This study compared the use of IDEXX Colilert and TECTA™ for measuring indicative contamination in 785 samples from drinking water, wells, surface water, greywater and a constructed wetland system, collected from Fijian and Indonesian informal settlements. Both methods ranked sample types in the same order in terms of indicative faecal contamination, and at <em>Escherichia coli</em> (<em>E. coli</em>) concentrations between <1–10<sup>5</sup> CFU or MPN/100 mL (municipal, shallow and deep well samples), both methods were highly correlated. However, at 10<sup>2</sup>–10<sup>9</sup> CFU/100 mL (TECTA™) or 10<sup>2</sup>–10<sup>6</sup> MPN/100 mL (IDEXX Colilert) <em>E. coli</em> (surface water samples), a moderate positive correlation was observed (<em>R</em> = 0.56, <em>p</em> = 2.2<sup>−13</sup>), and a high proportion of samples exceeded the detection limit of the IDEXX Colilert method. Greywater and septic tank samples exhibited total coliform mean values greater than 10<sup>6</sup> CFU/100 mL, with no correlation between IDEXX Colilert and TECTA™ results. TECTA™ required only one dilution for returning specific <em>E. coli</em> values, ideal for performance compliance and faecal contamination assessments, while IDEXX Colilert often needed two levels of dilution. For surveillance purposes, IDEXX Colilert may be more cost-effective given the higher initial setup costs of TECTA™; however, TECTA™’s faster turnaround times and automated results may offset expenses. This study presents a versatile decision analysis that enables laboratories worldwide to customise method comparisons based on their unique requirements, driving more effective implementation and global standardisation of these methods.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":443,"journal":{"name":"Water Research","volume":"275 ","pages":"Article 123207"},"PeriodicalIF":12.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluating analytical approaches for smarter decision-making in faecal contamination monitoring and assessment\",\"authors\":\"Yussi M. Palacios Delgado , Maghfira Saifuddaolah , Rebekah Henry , Kerrie Burge , David Thomas McCarthy , S. Fiona Barker , Christelle Schang , Vinaina Waqa , Brandon Winfrey , Karin Leder\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.watres.2025.123207\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Quantification of faecal indicator organism (FIO) is essential for surveillance monitoring, performance compliance and public health interventions. IDEXX's automated FIO detection technique, TECTA<sup>TM</sup>, and IDEXX Colilert offer greater efficiency than traditional methods but have not been critically compared across diverse levels of faecal contamination or evaluated against key practical requirements and cost factors. This study compared the use of IDEXX Colilert and TECTA™ for measuring indicative contamination in 785 samples from drinking water, wells, surface water, greywater and a constructed wetland system, collected from Fijian and Indonesian informal settlements. Both methods ranked sample types in the same order in terms of indicative faecal contamination, and at <em>Escherichia coli</em> (<em>E. coli</em>) concentrations between <1–10<sup>5</sup> CFU or MPN/100 mL (municipal, shallow and deep well samples), both methods were highly correlated. However, at 10<sup>2</sup>–10<sup>9</sup> CFU/100 mL (TECTA™) or 10<sup>2</sup>–10<sup>6</sup> MPN/100 mL (IDEXX Colilert) <em>E. coli</em> (surface water samples), a moderate positive correlation was observed (<em>R</em> = 0.56, <em>p</em> = 2.2<sup>−13</sup>), and a high proportion of samples exceeded the detection limit of the IDEXX Colilert method. Greywater and septic tank samples exhibited total coliform mean values greater than 10<sup>6</sup> CFU/100 mL, with no correlation between IDEXX Colilert and TECTA™ results. TECTA™ required only one dilution for returning specific <em>E. coli</em> values, ideal for performance compliance and faecal contamination assessments, while IDEXX Colilert often needed two levels of dilution. For surveillance purposes, IDEXX Colilert may be more cost-effective given the higher initial setup costs of TECTA™; however, TECTA™’s faster turnaround times and automated results may offset expenses. This study presents a versatile decision analysis that enables laboratories worldwide to customise method comparisons based on their unique requirements, driving more effective implementation and global standardisation of these methods.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":443,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Water Research\",\"volume\":\"275 \",\"pages\":\"Article 123207\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":12.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Water Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0043135425001216\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Water Research","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0043135425001216","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
Evaluating analytical approaches for smarter decision-making in faecal contamination monitoring and assessment
Quantification of faecal indicator organism (FIO) is essential for surveillance monitoring, performance compliance and public health interventions. IDEXX's automated FIO detection technique, TECTATM, and IDEXX Colilert offer greater efficiency than traditional methods but have not been critically compared across diverse levels of faecal contamination or evaluated against key practical requirements and cost factors. This study compared the use of IDEXX Colilert and TECTA™ for measuring indicative contamination in 785 samples from drinking water, wells, surface water, greywater and a constructed wetland system, collected from Fijian and Indonesian informal settlements. Both methods ranked sample types in the same order in terms of indicative faecal contamination, and at Escherichia coli (E. coli) concentrations between <1–105 CFU or MPN/100 mL (municipal, shallow and deep well samples), both methods were highly correlated. However, at 102–109 CFU/100 mL (TECTA™) or 102–106 MPN/100 mL (IDEXX Colilert) E. coli (surface water samples), a moderate positive correlation was observed (R = 0.56, p = 2.2−13), and a high proportion of samples exceeded the detection limit of the IDEXX Colilert method. Greywater and septic tank samples exhibited total coliform mean values greater than 106 CFU/100 mL, with no correlation between IDEXX Colilert and TECTA™ results. TECTA™ required only one dilution for returning specific E. coli values, ideal for performance compliance and faecal contamination assessments, while IDEXX Colilert often needed two levels of dilution. For surveillance purposes, IDEXX Colilert may be more cost-effective given the higher initial setup costs of TECTA™; however, TECTA™’s faster turnaround times and automated results may offset expenses. This study presents a versatile decision analysis that enables laboratories worldwide to customise method comparisons based on their unique requirements, driving more effective implementation and global standardisation of these methods.
期刊介绍:
Water Research, along with its open access companion journal Water Research X, serves as a platform for publishing original research papers covering various aspects of the science and technology related to the anthropogenic water cycle, water quality, and its management worldwide. The audience targeted by the journal comprises biologists, chemical engineers, chemists, civil engineers, environmental engineers, limnologists, and microbiologists. The scope of the journal include:
•Treatment processes for water and wastewaters (municipal, agricultural, industrial, and on-site treatment), including resource recovery and residuals management;
•Urban hydrology including sewer systems, stormwater management, and green infrastructure;
•Drinking water treatment and distribution;
•Potable and non-potable water reuse;
•Sanitation, public health, and risk assessment;
•Anaerobic digestion, solid and hazardous waste management, including source characterization and the effects and control of leachates and gaseous emissions;
•Contaminants (chemical, microbial, anthropogenic particles such as nanoparticles or microplastics) and related water quality sensing, monitoring, fate, and assessment;
•Anthropogenic impacts on inland, tidal, coastal and urban waters, focusing on surface and ground waters, and point and non-point sources of pollution;
•Environmental restoration, linked to surface water, groundwater and groundwater remediation;
•Analysis of the interfaces between sediments and water, and between water and atmosphere, focusing specifically on anthropogenic impacts;
•Mathematical modelling, systems analysis, machine learning, and beneficial use of big data related to the anthropogenic water cycle;
•Socio-economic, policy, and regulations studies.