Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33766609›Full record

ArticleJournal of microbiological methods2021

Large-scale comparison of E. coli levels determined by culture and a qPCR method (EPA Draft Method C) in Michigan towards the implementation of rapid, multi-site beach testing.

Richard Haugland, Kevin Oshima, Mano Sivaganesan, Alfred Dufour, Manju Varma, Shawn Siefring, Sharon Nappier, Brian Schnitker, Shannon Briggs

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of microbiological methods, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 29% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Richard HauglandU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Center for Environmental Measurements and Modeling, Cincinnati, OH, United States of America. Electronic address: haugland.rich@epa.gov.
Kevin OshimaU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Center for Environmental Measurements and Modeling, Cincinnati, OH, United States of America.
Mano SivaganesanU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Center for Environmental Measurements and Modeling, Cincinnati, OH, United States of America.
Alfred DufourU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Center for Environmental Measurements and Modeling, Cincinnati, OH, United States of America.
Manju VarmaU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Center for Environmental Measurements and Modeling, Cincinnati, OH, United States of America.
Shawn SiefringU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Center for Environmental Measurements and Modeling, Cincinnati, OH, United States of America.
Sharon NappierU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology, Washington, D.C, United States of America.
Brian SchnitkerU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology, Washington, D.C, United States of America.
Shannon BriggsMichigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy, Lansing, MI, United States of America.
Environmental Protection Agency · USMichigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy · USOffice of Science · US

Funding

Intramural EPA EPA999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Fecal pollution remains a challenge for water quality managers at Great Lakes and inland recreational beaches. The fecal indicator of choice at these beaches is typically Escherichia coli (E. coli), determined by culture-based methods that require over 18 h to obtain results. Researchers at the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have developed a rapid E. coli qPCR methodology (EPA Draft Method C) that can provide same-day results for improving public health protection with demonstrated sensitivity, specificity, and data acceptance criteria. However, limited information is currently available to compare the occurrence of E. coli determined by cultivation and by EPA Draft Method C (Method C). This study provides a large-scale data collection effort to compare the occurrence of E. coli determined by these alternative methods at more than 100 Michigan recreational beach and other sites using the complete set of quantitative data pairings and selected subsets of the data and sites meeting various eligibility requirements. Simple linear regression analyses of composite (pooled) data indicated a correlation between results of the E. coli monitoring approaches for each of the multi-site datasets as evidenced by Pearson R-squared values ranging from 0.452 to 0.641. Theoretical Method C threshold values, expressed as mean log10 target gene copies per reaction, that corresponded to an established E. coli culture method water quality standard of 300 MPN or CFU /100 mL varied only from 1.817 to 1.908 for the different datasets using this model. Different modeling and derivation approaches that incorporated within and between-site variability in the estimates also gave Method C threshold values in this range but only when relatively well-correlated datasets were used to minimize the error. A hypothetical exercise to evaluate the frequency of water impairments based on theoretical qPCR thresholds corresponding to the E. coli water quality standard for culture methods suggested that the methods may provide the same beach notification outcomes over 90% of the time with Method C results differing from culture method results that indicated acceptable and unacceptable water quality at overall rates of 1.9% and 6.6%, respectively. Results from this study provide useful information about the relationships between E. coli determined by culture and qPCR methods across many diverse freshwater sites and should facilitate efforts to implement qPCR-based E. coli detection for rapid recreational water quality monitoring on a large scale in the State of Michigan.

Indexed as

Colony Count, MicrobialEnvironmental MonitoringEscherichia coliLakesMichiganReal-Time Polymerase Chain ReactionUnited StatesUnited States Environmental Protection AgencyWater QualityAlternative methodAmbient surface waterE. coliEPA draft method CqPCRRecreational water

Identifiers

PMID33766609
PMCPMC8650687
OpenAlexW3138162975

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.