Previous Article | Next Article 
Applied and Environmental Microbiology, December 1999, p. 5522-5531, Vol. 65, No. 12
0099-2240/99/$04.00+0
Copyright © 1999, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.
Determining Sources of Fecal Pollution in a Rural
Virginia Watershed with Antibiotic Resistance Patterns in
Fecal Streptococci
Charles
Hagedorn,*
Sandra L.
Robinson,
Jennifer R.
Filtz,
Sarah M.
Grubbs,
Theresa
A.
Angier, and
Raymond B.
Reneau Jr.
Department of Crop and Soil Environmental
Sciences, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,
Blacksburg, Virginia 24061
Received 4 June 1999/Accepted 12 September 1999
 |
ABSTRACT |
Nonpoint sources of pollution that contribute fecal bacteria to
surface waters have proven difficult to identify. Knowledge of
pollution sources could aid in restoration of the water quality, reduce
the amounts of nutrients leaving watersheds, and reduce the danger of
infectious disease resulting from exposure to contaminated waters.
Patterns of antibiotic resistance in fecal streptococci were analyzed
by discriminant and cluster analysis and used to identify sources of
fecal pollution in a rural Virginia watershed. A database consisting of
patterns from 7,058 fecal streptococcus isolates was first established
from known human, livestock, and wildlife sources in Montgomery County,
Va. Correct fecal streptococcus source identification averaged 87% for
the entire database and ranged from 84% for deer isolates to 93% for
human isolates. To field test the method and the database, a watershed
improvement project (Page Brook) in Clarke County, Va., was initiated
in 1996. Comparison of 892 known-source isolates from that watershed
against the database resulted in an average correct classification rate of 88%. Combining all animal isolates increased correct classification rates to
95% for separations between animal and human sources. Stream samples from three collection sites were highly contaminated, and fecal streptococci from these sites were classified as being predominantly from cattle (>78% of isolates), with small proportions from waterfowl, deer, and unidentified sources (
7% each). Based on
these results, cattle access to the stream was restricted by installation of fencing and in-pasture watering stations. Fecal coliforms were reduced at the three sites by an average of 94%, from
prefencing average populations of 15,900 per 100 ml to postfencing average populations of 960 per 100 ml. After fencing, <45% of fecal
streptococcus isolates were classified as being from cattle. These
results demonstrate that antibiotic resistance profiles in fecal
streptococci can be used to reliably determine sources of fecal
pollution, and water quality improvements can occur when efforts to
address the identified sources are made.
 |
INTRODUCTION |
Many surface waters and groundwaters
in the mid-Atlantic region of the United States are contaminated by
fecal pollution (12). This contamination results in
increased health risks to persons exposed to the water, degradation of
recreational and drinking water quality, and nutrient loss from
watersheds to surface waters, such as the Chesapeake Bay. Nonpoint
sources of pollution that contribute fecal bacteria to surface waters
have proven very difficult to accurately identify. Knowledge of
pollution sources could aid in the restoration of the water quality,
reduce the amounts of nutrients leaving watersheds, and reduce the
danger of infectious disease resulting from exposure to contaminated
waters. According to Environmental Protection Agency's National
Watershed Database 305b report for Virginia
(2a), fecal coliform
bacteria are the most widespread problem in rivers and streams, and
agriculture and pasture land contribute much of the fecal coliform
bacteria in Virginia's waters. The Environmental Protection Agency's
report is typical of those from other states in the region as well.
While fecal coliforms are the most widely used bacterial indicator of
water quality, there are good reasons to use fecal streptococci to
determine sources of pollution. There are some potential sources (e.g.,
composted animal and poultry litter and advanced-treatment class B
biosolids) where it is difficult to detect and isolate fecal coliforms
while there is no difficulty in isolating fecal streptococci
(7). Fecal coliforms would not be suitable for identifying
contamination from these types of materials. While antibiotic
resistance patterns have been used in the past, with variable success,
to determine sources of fecal coliforms, such patterns do appear to
have more potential with fecal streptococci (16). Lastly,
fecal streptococci tend to persist longer in the environment than fecal
coliforms, and while this may limit their usefulness as indicators of
recent water contamination, a fecal organism with a longer survival
time can be an advantage when collecting isolates for source
determination (10, 13, 14).
Several attempts to develop methods to determine sources of fecal
pollution have been made, and to date most have not proven useful.
These include the ratio of fecal coliforms to fecal streptococci (4, 14), source-specific bacteriophages (15),
differences in the species composition of fecal streptococci among
various types of animals (2), and patterns of antibiotic
resistance in fecal coliforms (9, 11). Simmons
(12) successfully used fatty acid profiles and DNA
fingerprinting in Escherichia coli to determine nonpoint
fecal coliform sources in tidal inlets in the Chesapeake Bay. Other
molecular procedures, such as random amplified polymorphic DNA analysis
(1), have recently been developed for fingerprinting
microbial genomes. The potential to identify individual strains of
different bacteria by genetic profiles indicates that molecular
approaches may also be suitable for source differentiation of fecal
bacteria (3, 8).
While antibiotic resistance patterns may have some use in identifying
sources of fecal coliforms (11), the potential use of such
patterns for fecal streptococci currently appears to be more feasible
(7, 16). Intrinsic antibiotic resistance and resistance
patterns have been widely used in bacterial identification, but such
patterns have yet to be proven as suitable for determining sources of
fecal organisms (5, 6, 10). Wiggins (16) first
demonstrated the potential for this approach by successfully using
antibiotic resistance patterns in fecal streptococci and discriminant
analysis (DA) to differentiate between human and animal sources and
between certain types of animal sources.
The objectives of this project were (i) to validate the method
described by Wiggins (16) with a larger database of
known-source isolates from a wider geographical region and (ii) to use
this method in a watershed project to identify fecal pollution sources.
 |
MATERIALS AND METHODS |
Sources of isolates.
Isolates from 147 samples from six
known sources in Montgomery County, Va., were collected throughout 1995 and 1996 to build a source database from beef cattle, dairy cattle,
deer, chickens, humans, and waterfowl (geese and ducks). For each
animal source, samples were collected from fresh feces. The cattle and
chicken samples were obtained from the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University farms, deer samples were collected from a nearby
national forest recreational area containing a large deer population,
and waterfowl samples were from resident flocks that frequent a pond on
the campus. Human samples were collected from experimental domestic
wastewater treatment systems from individual homes. After collection,
all samples were placed on ice in coolers and processed within 6 h.
Isolation of fecal streptococci.
Samples were suspended and
diluted in saline buffer (8.5 g of NaCl, 0.3 g of
KH2PO4, and 0.6 g of
Na2HPO4 per liter [pH 7.3]) and filtered
through a 0.45-µm-pore-size filter (type GN-6; Gelman Sciences). The
filters were transferred to a 50-mm petri dish containing
m-Enterococcus Agar (BBL) and incubated for 24 to 48 h at 37°C.
After incubation, individual red-pigmented colonies were picked with
sterile toothpicks, transferred to 96-microwell plates containing 0.2 ml of Enterococcosel broth (BBL), and incubated for another 24 to
48 h at 37°C. Those wells that exhibited growth and formed a
black color after incubation in Enterococcosel broth were counted as
positive (16).
Biochemical patterns (antibiotic resistance and other
tests).
Thirteen antibiotics (Sigma) were evaluated: the five
reported by Wiggins (16), plus amoxicillin, ampicillin,
chloramphenicol, erythromycin, neomycin sulfate, rifampin,
tetracycline, and vancomycin hydrochloride. The antibiotics were added
from filter-sterilized stock solutions in water (ampicillin,
halofuginone, neomycin, oxytetracycline, and streptomycin),
water-ethanol at a 1:1 ratio (chloramphenicol, chlorotetracycline,
erythromycin, salinomycin, tetracycline, and vancomycin), or
water-methanol at a 1:1 ratio (amoxicillin and rifampin) to autoclaved
and cooled Trypticase soy agar (BBL) at initial concentrations of 5, 10, 20, 40, 60, 80, and 100 µg/ml (6). The isolates were
transferred with a 48-prong replica plater (Sigma) from the
Enterococcosel-containing microwells to a set of Trypticase soy agar
plates containing the various concentrations of each antibiotic to be
tested and to a control plate containing no antibiotic. The plates were
incubated at 37°C for 24 h, and growth of each isolate on each
concentration of every antibiotic was determined. An isolate was
considered resistant to a given concentration of antibiotic if growth
comparable to that of the controls occurred on that plate. Any isolates
that did not grow on the control plates (containing no antibiotic) or
that were esculin negative were not used in the analysis. In addition
to antibiotic resistance, isolates were tested for growth in brain
heart infusion (BHI) broth containing 6.5% NaCl, for starch hydrolysis
on BHI agar containing soluble starch, and for growth in BHI broth at
45°C (4).
Statistical analysis. (i) DA.
Data on the ability of each of
the known-source isolates to grow in the presence of each concentration
of each antibiotic and for other tests (starch hydrolysis, growth in
6.5% NaCl, and growth at 45°C) were analyzed with SAS (version 6.12;
SAS Institute Inc.) by using the procedure DISCRIM (prior
probabilities, equal; covariance matrix, pooled). Each analysis
produced a classification rule where the average rate of correct
classification (ARCC) for each analysis was determined by averaging the
percentages of correctly classified isolates for each source as
described by Wiggins (16). The DA procedure first builds a
database for each known source (humans and beef cattle, etc.) and then
compares each set of isolates from an unknown source against the
database of known sources and classifies each isolate into one of the
possible sources.
(ii) CA.
Data for each of the known-source isolates were
analyzed with SAS-JMP (version 3.2.2; SAS Institute Inc.) by using
Ward's hierarchical procedure, where the distance between any two
clusters is the analysis of variance sum of squares added over all
variables. Cluster analysis (CA) involves clustering, a technique of
grouping together variables (isolates) that have similar values. CA
builds a database where all known-source isolates are grouped into a cluster by source. Ward's method joins clusters to maximize the likelihood of a fit. The CA procedure produces a dendrogram that groups
identical isolates within a set and then builds a cluster database from
these sets. Unknown-source isolates are placed in the most likely
cluster based on source identification and are readily visible within
the dendrogram.
Watershed study.
The Page Brook watershed is located in
Clarke County, Va., a rural county with an agriculture-based economy
located approximately 80 km west of Washington, D.C. (Fig.
1). The watershed is characterized by
karst topography with wooded tracts and farms and includes one
predominant stream, Page Brook, that is approximately 5.9 km in length
from origin to confluence with another stream and entry into an
adjacent down-gradient watershed. Page Brook drains a small watershed
of roughly 1,980 ha; the stream has been periodically monitored by
state officials and was reported to be contaminated with fecal bacteria
and nitrates (7). Possible sources of contamination included
domestic livestock (mostly cattle) with free access to the stream,
resident populations of waterfowl (mainly Canadian geese), large
wildlife populations (predominated by deer), and septic tank-subsurface
absorption systems from 127 residences. Water samples were collected
monthly from November 1996 through February 1999 and consisted of both
surface water (stream) and groundwater (residential-well) samples
(usually 10 to 12 samples each). Samples were transported to the
laboratory on ice packs in coolers and assayed within 24 h. Fecal
streptococci were isolated and characterized as described above. For
monitoring purposes, all water samples were also assayed for fecal
coliforms, using membrane filtration with isolation on mFC agar (BBL)
and incubation at 44.5°C (water bath) for 24 h (4).
Results were recorded as CFU per 100 ml. Prior to and near the end of
the project, fecal samples from known sources (e.g., deer, cattle,
geese, and humans [from septage trucks unloading at a wastewater
treatment plant]) were also collected and assayed.

View larger version (79K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 1.
Page Brook basin (30 km2, inside the heavy
lines) showing the location of Page Brook stream (heavy segmented line)
and the 3.2-km impaired stream segment extending from FC-12 to FC-16.
|
|
 |
RESULTS |
Database development.
All isolates were gram-positive cocci,
and almost all (98% or more) grew at 45°C and in the presence of
6.5% NaCl. Cultures with these characteristics that were isolated on
m-Enterococcus agar and that hydrolyzed esculin in Enterococcosel broth
were classified as fecal streptococci (4). The best
separation of isolates by source was obtained with the following six
antibiotics at the indicated concentrations (Table
1): chlortetracycline hydrochloride (40 and 60 µg/ml), erythromycin (7 and 15 µg/ml), neomycin sulfate (10 and 40 µg/ml), oxytetracycline hydrochloride (10, 30, 60, and 100 µg/ml), streptomycin sulfate (10, 30, 45, 60, and 100 µg/ml), and
tetracycline (15, 30, and 100 µg/ml). Starch hydrolysis, growth in
6.5% NaCl, and incubation at 45°C did not enhance the level of
separation over that achieved with antibiotic resistance. The other
seven antibiotics did not increase the level of isolate separation and
were not tested further.
The chicken, dairy cow, and human isolates exhibited the widest range
of antibiotic resistance, while the beef cow, deer,
and waterfowl
isolates exhibited the narrowest (Table
1). The
chicken and human
isolates expressed similar patterns of resistance
to all six
antibiotics, but the chicken isolates were resistant
to higher
concentrations. The dairy cow isolates demonstrated
resistance to all
antibiotics except erythromycin, and resistance
patterns were similar
to those of chicken and human isolates.
The beef cow isolates exhibited
some resistance to three antibiotics
(oxytetracycline, streptomycin,
and tetracycline), but at low
levels. The waterfowl isolates were
similar to the beef cow isolates
but lacked resistance to tetracycline,
while the deer isolates
exhibited low levels of resistance to just
oxytetracycline and
streptomycin.
By using DA on 7,058 known isolates, the average correct classification
rates varied from 85% for the chicken isolates to
93% for the human
isolates (Table
2). The most common
misclassifications
were between human and chicken isolates and between
beef cow and
waterfowl isolates. CA divided the isolates into two large
subclusters
based on high levels of antibiotic resistance (chicken,
dairy
cow, and human isolates [Fig.
2])
and low levels of antibiotic
resistance (beef cow, deer, and waterfowl
isolates [Fig.
3]).
There was excellent
separation between the dairy cow and chicken
isolate clusters and
between the dairy cow and human isolate clusters
(Fig.
2). While the
chicken and human isolate clusters were separate,
there was some
overlap, as indicated by the small subcluster that
contained isolates
from both sources. This small subcluster contained
the same isolates
that were misclassified in Table
2. There was
also excellent separation
between the deer and beef cow isolate
clusters and between the dairy
cow and waterfowl isolate clusters
(Fig.
3). While there was separation
between the beef cow and
wildlife isolate clusters, the wildlife
isolate cluster was actually
a subcluster within the larger beef cow
isolate cluster. This
was a reflection of the close similarity of
antibiotic resistance
patterns between the beef cow and wildlife
isolates (Table
1)
and the misclassification between the two sources
(Table
2).
The visual display of six distinct clusters based on source
(Fig.
2 and
3) and the high rates of correct classification (Table
2)
demonstrated that the database was acceptable for further validation
with both known- and unknown-source isolates from a different
geographical region.

View larger version (42K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 2.
Dendrogram showing cluster formation from the database
of known-source isolates from waterfowl (WF), beef cattle (BC), and
deer (DR). The remaining descriptor for each line is a code for
sampling date and location. Individual isolates with the same
antibiotic resistance patterns were pooled to simplify the number of
entries in the dendrogram.
|
|

View larger version (39K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 3.
Dendrogram showing cluster formation from the database
of known-source isolates from humans (HUM), chickens (PLTRY), and dairy
cattle (DC). The remaining descriptor for each line is a code for
sampling date and location. Individual isolates with the same
antibiotic resistance patterns were pooled to simplify the number of
entries in the dendrogram.
|
|
Database validation: Page Brook watershed.
With DA, the ARCC
for the 892 isolates from known sources within the Page Brook watershed
ranged from 85% for beef cow isolates to 93% for human isolates
(Table 3). There were no chicken or dairy
cow sources within the watershed. There were no isolates that were not
identified with a source, regardless of whether the source was correct.
The most common misclassifications were between beef cow and waterfowl
isolates and between deer and beef cow isolates. Near the end of the
project, correct classification rates for 642 known-source isolates
were lower by 5 to 7% but were still in a very acceptable range (ARCC
was 82% [Table 3]). Since the most important goal was to
differentiate between human and animal sources, all animal sources were
pooled (Table 4). This pooling of all
animal sources (with DA) improved the rates of correct classification
for both the known-source database (human isolates, 96%; isolates from
all animals, 98%) and the known-source isolates from the Page Brook
watershed (human isolates, 95%; isolates from all animals, 96%).
Over the 28 months of sampling, well samples were almost uniformly
negative for fecal coliforms and fecal streptococci (data
not shown).
There were a few well samples that were occasionally
positive for fecal
coliforms, but always at low numbers of organisms
(<10 CFU/100 ml).
For fecal coliforms in the stream samples over
the first 12 months of
sampling, six sampling locations were usually
negative, three were
usually positive (but at relatively low levels
[<100 CFU/100 ml]),
and three (PB10, PB12, and PB16) were high,
especially during the
period from August to October 1997 (Table
5). The sampling location for PB16 was
approximately 2.4 km downstream
from PB10, and PB12 was roughly 0.8 km
upstream of PB10. These
three sites defined a 3.2-km impaired stream
segment based on
high fecal coliform numbers. The next sampling
location upstream
(PB29) of these three was positive for fecal
coliforms for 15
of the 28 monthly samples but yielded <10 CFU/100 ml
for 14 of
the 15 positive samples.
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
TABLE 5.
Fecal coliform and fecal streptococcus populations from
the three most contaminated sites of Page Brook watershed
|
|
Sites PB10, PB12, and PB16 all involved farms where Page Brook passed
through pastures that contained cattle herds with unrestricted
access
to the stream (Fig.
1). Both fecal coliform and fecal streptococcus
populations over the first 12 months of sampling were low during
cool
weather (November 1996 to April 1997) and much higher during
warm
weather (May to July 1997 and August to October 1997), when
cattle were
commonly found in the stream. During cool weather
in the second year of
sampling (November 1997 to April 1998),
cattle access to the stream was
restricted by installation of
fences with either in-pasture watering
devices or stream access
points for watering. Reducing stream access
resulted in much lower
fecal coliform numbers over the warm periods of
the second year
(May to July 1998 and August to October 1998 [Table
5]).
The decision to reduce cattle access to the stream was made based on
source identification of the 4,615 unknown-source isolates
(Table
6 and Fig.
4). No isolates were classified as coming
from
humans over the entire course of the study. With DA, for the
combined
warm seasons during the first year (May to October 1997), 78 to
86% of the fecal streptococci were identified as being from beef
cattle, with the remainder divided between deer and waterfowl.
With CA
(May to October 1997 [Fig.
4]), all sets of unknown-source
isolates
were grouped in beef cow, deer, and waterfowl isolate
clusters. Some
isolates were placed outside of the clusters by
CA, and these were
tabulated and reported as unidentified isolates
(Table
6). These
results formed the rationale for reducing cattle
access to the stream
by fencing during the cool season in the
second year (November 1997 to
April 1998). Restricting stream
access resulted in 50% (or greater)
reductions in the percentage
of isolates identified as being from beef
cattle during the second-year
warm season (May to October 1998)
compared to the first-year warm
season (May to October 1997 [Table
6]). With the reduction in
beef cow isolates, deer and waterfowl
isolates were more numerous
and there appeared to be a modest increase
in the percentage of
unidentified isolates.
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
TABLE 6.
Source identification of unknown-source isolates from the
three most contaminated sites of Page Brook watershed
|
|

View larger version (39K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 4.
Dendrogram showing cluster formation from the Page Brook
isolates (in black) within the database of known-source isolates from
waterfowl (WF), beef cattle (BC), and deer (DR) (Fig. 2). The remaining
descriptor for each line is a code for sampling date and location.
Individual isolates with the same antibiotic resistance patterns were
pooled to simplify the number of entries in the dendrogram.
|
|
Limiting cattle access to the stream also reduced the number of fecal
coliforms in the second-year warm season (August to
October 1998) by
88.8% (PB10), 96.2% (PB12), and 60.3% (PB16)
compared to the number
in the first-year warm season (August to
October 1997); the highest
fecal coliform counts were recorded
during these warm seasons (Table
7). When the counts of fecal
coliforms
for the periods from May to July 1997 and May to July
1998 were
compared, the reduction was found to be significant
only for PB12
(82.7% reduction). Comparing the numbers for the
periods from November
1997 to February 1997 and from November
1998 to February 1999 revealed
a significant reduction only for
PB10 (93.9% reduction).
 |
DISCUSSION |
As described by Wiggins (16), antibiotic resistance
patterns of isolates of fecal streptococci, analyzed with DA, was a suitable method to differentiate and identify sources of fecal pollution in water. However, the five antibiotics and
concentrations evaluated by Wiggins did not provide adequate separation
of isolates from known sources, so it was necessary to test a wider
range of antibiotics and concentrations in order to find those that did
provide levels of separation that were as high as possible. Both DA and
CA were suitable statistical procedures for analyzing antibiotic
resistance patterns. While either procedure could be satisfactorily
used alone, the advantage of using both is mainly in the additional
confidence generated when the two methods provide the same answers.
The advantage of using DA is that percentages of isolates from
different sources are provided and rates of correct classification can
easily be determined (Tables 2 and 3). The advantage of using CA is
that it provides a dendrogram that shows how well the separations by
source are occurring, and the degree of relatedness between isolates
from different sources is readily apparent. DA was essential with the
samples from streams where isolates from multiple sources occurred, as
it was critical to know the proportions contributed by each source.
However, DA cannot create a category for unidentified isolates, so
those clustered as unidentified by CA were either incorrectly
classified by DA or had a novel resistance pattern that CA could not
resolve (Table 6). CA was especially useful in testing different
antibiotics and concentrations while developing the database of
known-source isolates. Dendrograms were generated with hundreds of
different combinations of antibiotics and concentrations until the
specific combination that clustered each set of isolates in the
database within the correct source was found (Fig. 2 and 3).
The conventional tests that were evaluated made it more difficult to
adequately separate isolate clusters by source and were discontinued.
Growth in the presence of 6.5% NaCl is used to separate the
enterococcus group (all positive) from Streptococcus bovis and Streptococcus equinus (both negative), while starch
hydrolysis is associated with just S. bovis. Many isolates
from all known sources were positive for both starch hydrolysis and
growth in 6.5% NaCl, and this caused difficulty with CA and DA in
adequately separating isolates by source.
The high rate of correct classification for the known-source isolates
from Page Brook was an important result, as it meant that the larger
known-source database could be successfully used with isolates from a
different geographical region (Table 3). This close fit may have been a
fortuitous result, since it is reasonable to expect that antibiotic
resistance could vary considerably among isolates from widely different
areas. Other areas could also include potential sources of pollution
that were not included in the database (e.g., dogs, horses, sheep,
swine, and beavers). The best approach in using antibiotic resistance
profiles should always be to first test the isolate database with some
known-source isolates whenever a new region is considered for
determining sources. If these provide suitable levels of correct
classification, then the database will not need to be altered. If
suitable classification levels are not obtained, there are two options
to explore. One is to alter the database by not including some of the
antibiotics or concentrations in DA or CA to try to find some
combination that provides acceptable levels of correct classification
(this could also involve adding new antibiotics). The second option is
to build a new database composed entirely of known-source isolates from
the new geographical area.
For a database to be able to correctly classify bacteria in a polluted
stream, accuracy of classification (precision) is important but not
sufficient alone. The database must also contain enough isolates to be
representative of the organism being classified. It is not really a
question of a specific number of isolates needed to provide better
source identification (higher ARCCs) but rather a question of
"representativeness" of the database. One could have a 100% ARCC
with one isolate from each known source (independent of how many
antibiotics were used), but that one isolate would probably not be very
representative of all the possible isolates of that type. At this
point, perhaps the best approach to determine if a database is
representative is to regularly add samples (groups of known-source
isolates) to an existing database. If the ARCC (and/or the individual
correct classifications) do not change appreciably (up or down) as new
samples are added, then the library should be representative. In our
experience, the database of known sources will require a few hundred
isolates per source before that point is reached (Table 3).
Fecal coliform and fecal streptococcus populations in the stream
samples reflected the activities of the cattle herds that had
unrestricted access to Page Brook (Table 5). Cattle loafed in the
stream on a regular basis during warm weather, and this resulted in the
high counts obtained from August to October 1997 (Tables 5 and 7).
Restricting access dramatically lowered fecal coliform counts during
the unusually hot and dry conditions that occurred from August to
October 1998. Average counts at two of the three sampling sites (PB10
and PB16 [Table 7]) were reduced to levels below recreational-water
standards for Virginia (1,000 per 100 ml for any one sample). While it
was not a goal of this project to reduce fecal coliform levels to below
recreational-water standards, this appears to be achievable, especially
as vegetation in riparian zones adjacent to the stream becomes more
established over time. However, remaining below such standards may be
difficult in rural areas like the Page Brook watershed, where large
populations of resident Canada geese, deer, and other wildlife occur.
Since the reductions in fecal bacteria between the two summers was
primarily among isolates from cattle, the proportion of isolates from
waterfowl, wildlife, and unknown sources appeared to increase (Table
6). These unclassified organisms were most likely from sources that were not included in the database (e.g., dogs, cats, horses, and sheep)
rather than misclassified, since the rates of correct classification remained high throughout the study (Table 3). In the first warm season
(May to October 1997, prior to fencing) the proportion of isolates from
cattle was so high that those from other sources were difficult to find.
The results presented here affirmed the work by Wiggins
(16), showing that antibiotic resistance patterns can be
used with fecal streptococci to determine sources of fecal pollution in water. With the addition of CA, both statistical methods (CA and DA)
provided reliable and reproducible results with a small-scale watershed
validation test for fecal source identification. With current
regulatory interest in the concept of total maximum daily loading
(TMDLs) for streams, it may be possible through accurate source
identification to develop TMDLs for fecal bacteria from specific
sources (e.g., humans, livestock, or wildlife). Our results (detection
of no human isolates) had a direct impact on water quality improvement
in Page Brook, as local officials were able to focus restoration
efforts on the actual sources (e.g., beef cattle) rather than on those
that made no contribution to the water pollution. Many recreational,
surface, and well waters test positive for fecal bacteria throughout
the world, but efficient use of resources for water quality improvement
needs to be based on accurate identification of the source(s) of the
fecal pollution. If the procedures presented here can reliably and
accurately identify and separate different fecal sources, as they
appear to do, they can provide an important tool to those who are
responsible for public health and environmental protection and are
charged with reducing pollution, protecting public health, and
improving water quality.
 |
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
We thank B. Wiggins for critical review of the manuscript. Thanks
also are due to Alison Teetor, Natural Resource Planner for Clarke
County, Va., for cooperation in the watershed project and sample collection.
This work was supported by Program 319 funding from the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency and the Virginia Water Resources Research Center.
 |
FOOTNOTES |
*
Corresponding author. Mailing address: Department of
Crop and Soil Environmental Sciences, VPI & SU, Smyth Hall,
Blacksburg, VA 24061-0404. Phone: (540) 231-4895. Fax: (540)
231-3431. E-mail: chagedor{at}vt.edu.
 |
REFERENCES |
| 1.
|
Berg, D. E.,
N. S. Akopyants, and D. Kersulyte.
1994.
Fingerprinting microbial genomes using the RAPD or AP-PCR method.
Methods Mol. Cell. Biol.
5:13-24.
|
| 2.
|
Devriese, L. A.,
B. Pot, and M. D. Collins.
1993.
Phenotypic identification of the genus Enterococcus and differentiation of phylogenetically distinct enterococcal species and species groups.
J. Appl. Bacteriol.
75:399-408[Medline].
|
| 2a.
| Environmental Protection Agency. 1 September 1999. National Watershed Database 305b. [Online.]
http://www.epa.gov/surf3/states/VA. [31 October 1999, last date
accessed.]
|
| 3.
|
Gillespie, B. E.,
B. M. Jayarao, and S. P. Oliver.
1997.
Identification of Streptococcus species by random polymorphic deoxyribonucleic acid fingerprinting.
J. Dairy Sci.
80:471-476[Abstract].
|
| 4.
|
Greenberg, A. E.,
L. S. Clesceri, and A. D. Eaton (ed.).
1992.
Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, 18th ed.
American Public Health Association, Washington, D.C.
|
| 5.
|
Hagedorn, C.
1986.
Role of genetic variants in autecological research, p. 61-74.
In
R. L. Tate (ed.), Microbial autecology: a method for environmental studies. John Wiley & Sons, New York, N.Y
|
| 6.
|
Hagedorn, C.
1994.
Spontaneous and intrinsic antibiotic resistance markers, p. 575-592.
In
R. W. Weaver, J. S. Angle, and R. S. Botomley (ed.), Methods of soil analysis. Part 2. Microbiological and biochemical properties. Soil Science Society of America, Madison, Wis
|
| 7.
|
Hagedorn, C.
1998.
A method to determine sources of fecal pollution, p. 112-116.
In
Proceedings of the National Onsite Wastewater Recycling Association Annual Conference
|
| 8.
|
Kariuki, S.,
C. Gilks,
J. Kimari,
A. Obanda,
J. Muyodi,
P. Waiyaki, and C. A. Hart.
1999.
Genotype analysis of Escherichia coli strains isolated from children and chickens living in close contact.
Appl. Environ. Microbiol.
65:472-476[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 9.
|
Kaspar, C. W.,
J. L. Burgess,
I. T. Knight, and R. R. Colwell.
1990.
Antibiotic resistance indexing of Escherichia coli to identify sources of fecal contamination in water.
Can. J. Microbiol.
36:891-894[Medline].
|
| 10.
|
Kibbey, H. J.,
C. Hagedorn, and E. L. McCoy.
1978.
Use of fecal streptococci as indicators of pollution in soil.
Appl. Environ. Microbiol.
35:711-717[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 11.
|
Pillai, S. D.,
V. W. Widmer,
K. G. Maciorowski, and S. C. Ricke.
1997.
Antibiotic resistance profiles of Escherichia coli isolated from rural and urban environments.
J. Environ. Sci. Health Part A
32:1665-1675.
|
| 12.
|
Simmons, G. M., Jr.
1994.
Potential sources for fecal coliforms in tidal inlets, p. 49-67.
In
Proceedings of the Interstate Seafoood Seminar
|
| 13.
|
Sinton, L. W.,
A. M. Donnison, and C. M. Hastie.
1993.
Faecal streptococci as faecal pollution indicators: a review. I. Taxonomy and enumeration.
N. Z. J. Mar. Freshw. Res.
27:101-115.
|
| 14.
|
Sinton, L. W.,
A. M. Donnison, and C. M. Hastie.
1993.
Faecal streptococci as faecal pollution indicators: a review. II. Sanitary significance, survival, and use.
N. Z. J. Mar. Freshw. Res.
27:117-137.
|
| 15.
|
Tartera, C.,
F. Lucena, and J. Jofre.
1989.
Human origin of Bacteroides fragilis bacteriophages present in the environment.
Appl. Environ. Microbiol.
55:2696-2701[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 16.
|
Wiggins, B. A.
1996.
Discriminant analysis of antibiotic resistance patterns in fecal streptococci, a method to differentiate human and animal sources of fecal pollution in natural waters.
Appl. Environ. Microbiol.
62:3997-4002[Abstract].
|
Applied and Environmental Microbiology, December 1999, p. 5522-5531, Vol. 65, No. 12
0099-2240/99/$04.00+0
Copyright © 1999, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.
This article has been cited by other articles:
-
Dickerson, J. W. Jr., Crozier, J. B., Hagedorn, C., Hassall, A.
(2007). Assessment of the 16S-23S rDNA Intergenic Spacer Region in Enterococcus spp. for Microbial Source Tracking. J. Environ. Qual.
36: 1661-1669
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Koike, S., Krapac, I. G., Oliver, H. D., Yannarell, A. C., Chee-Sanford, J. C., Aminov, R. I., Mackie, R. I.
(2007). Monitoring and Source Tracking of Tetracycline Resistance Genes in Lagoons and Groundwater Adjacent to Swine Production Facilities over a 3-Year Period. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.
73: 4813-4823
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Ruecker, N. J., Braithwaite, S. L., Topp, E., Edge, T., Lapen, D. R., Wilkes, G., Robertson, W., Medeiros, D., Sensen, C. W., Neumann, N. F.
(2007). Tracking Host Sources of Cryptosporidium spp. in Raw Water for Improved Health Risk Assessment. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.
73: 3945-3957
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Kaneene, J. B., Miller, R., Sayah, R., Johnson, Y. J., Gilliland, D., Gardiner, J. C.
(2007). Considerations When Using Discriminant Function Analysis of Antimicrobial Resistance Profiles To Identify Sources of Fecal Contamination of Surface Water in Michigan. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.
73: 2878-2890
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Stoeckel, D. M., Harwood, V. J.
(2007). Performance, Design, and Analysis in Microbial Source Tracking Studies. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.
73: 2405-2415
[Full Text]
-
Anderson, M. A., Whitlock, J. E., Harwood, V. J.
(2006). Diversity and Distribution of Escherichia coli Genotypes and Antibiotic Resistance Phenotypes in Feces of Humans, Cattle, and Horses. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.
72: 6914-6922
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Price, B., Venso, E. A., Frana, M. F., Greenberg, J., Ware, A., Currey, L.
(2006). Classification tree method for bacterial source tracking with antibiotic resistance analysis data.. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.
72: 3468-3475
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Soule, M., Kuhn, E., Loge, F., Gay, J., Call, D. R.
(2006). Using DNA microarrays to identify library-independent markers for bacterial source tracking.. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.
72: 1843-1851
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Fogarty, L. R., Voytek, M. A.
(2005). Comparison of Bacteroides-Prevotella 16S rRNA Genetic Markers for Fecal Samples from Different Animal Species. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.
71: 5999-6007
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Ahmed, W., Neller, R., Katouli, M.
(2005). Host Species-Specific Metabolic Fingerprint Database for Enterococci and Escherichia coli and Its Application To Identify Sources of Fecal Contamination in Surface Waters. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.
71: 4461-4468
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Anderson, K. L., Whitlock, J. E., Harwood, V. J.
(2005). Persistence and Differential Survival of Fecal Indicator Bacteria in Subtropical Waters and Sediments. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.
71: 3041-3048
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Fong, T.-T., Lipp, E. K.
(2005). Enteric Viruses of Humans and Animals in Aquatic Environments: Health Risks, Detection, and Potential Water Quality Assessment Tools. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev.
69: 357-371
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Sayah, R. S., Kaneene, J. B., Johnson, Y., Miller, R.
(2005). Patterns of Antimicrobial Resistance Observed in Escherichia coli Isolates Obtained from Domestic- and Wild-Animal Fecal Samples, Human Septage, and Surface Water. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.
71: 1394-1404
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Johnson, L. K., Brown, M. B., Carruthers, E. A., Ferguson, J. A., Dombek, P. E., Sadowsky, M. J.
(2004). Sample Size, Library Composition, and Genotypic Diversity among Natural Populations of Escherichia coli from Different Animals Influence Accuracy of Determining Sources of Fecal Pollution. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.
70: 4478-4485
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Seurinck, S., Verstraete, W., Siciliano, S. D.
(2003). Use of 16S-23S rRNA Intergenic Spacer Region PCR and Repetitive Extragenic Palindromic PCR Analyses of Escherichia coli Isolates To Identify Nonpoint Fecal Sources. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.
69: 4942-4950
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Wiggins, B. A., Cash, P. W., Creamer, W. S., Dart, S. E., Garcia, P. P., Gerecke, T. M., Han, J., Henry, B. L., Hoover, K. B., Johnson, E. L., Jones, K. C., McCarthy, J. G., McDonough, J. A., Mercer, S. A., Noto, M. J., Park, H., Phillips, M. S., Purner, S. M., Smith, B. M., Stevens, E. N., Varner, A. K.
(2003). Use of Antibiotic Resistance Analysis for Representativeness Testing of Multiwatershed Libraries. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.
69: 3399-3405
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
McLellan, S. L., Daniels, A. D., Salmore, A. K.
(2003). Genetic Characterization of Escherichia coli Populations from Host Sources of Fecal Pollution by Using DNA Fingerprinting. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.
69: 2587-2594
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Scott, T. M., Rose, J. B., Jenkins, T. M., Farrah, S. R., Lukasik, J.
(2002). Microbial Source Tracking: Current Methodology and Future Directions. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.
68: 5796-5803
[Full Text]
-
Hartel, P. G., Summer, J. D., Hill, J. L., Collins, J. V., Entry, J. A., Segars, W. I.
(2002). Geographic Variability of Escherichia coli Ribotypes from Animals in Idaho and Georgia. J. Environ. Qual.
31: 1273-1278
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Wheeler, A. L., Hartel, P. G., Godfrey, D. G., Hill, J. L., Segars, W. I.
(2002). Potential of Enterococcus faecalis as a Human Fecal Indicator for Microbial Source Tracking. J. Environ. Qual.
31: 1286-1293
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Graves, A. K., Hagedorn, C., Teetor, A., Mahal, M., Booth, A. M., Reneau, R. B. Jr.
(2002). Antibiotic Resistance Profiles to Determine Sources of Fecal Contamination in a Rural Virginia Watershed. J. Environ. Qual.
31: 1300-1308
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Guan, S., Xu, R., Chen, S., Odumeru, J., Gyles, C.
(2002). Development of a Procedure for Discriminating among Escherichia coli Isolates from Animal and Human Sources. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.
68: 2690-2698
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Chee-Sanford, J. C., Aminov, R. I., Krapac, I. J., Garrigues-Jeanjean, N., Mackie, R. I.
(2001). Occurrence and Diversity of Tetracycline Resistance Genes in Lagoons and Groundwater Underlying Two Swine Production Facilities. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.
67: 1494-1502
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Carson, C. A., Shear, B. L., Ellersieck, M. R., Asfaw, A.
(2001). Identification of Fecal Escherichia coli from Humans and Animals by Ribotyping. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.
67: 1503-1507
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Bernhard, A. E., Field, K. G.
(2000). A PCR Assay To Discriminate Human and Ruminant Feces on the Basis of Host Differences in Bacteroides-Prevotella Genes Encoding 16S rRNA. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.
66: 4571-4574
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Harwood, V. J., Whitlock, J., Withington, V.
(2000). Classification of Antibiotic Resistance Patterns of Indicator Bacteria by Discriminant Analysis: Use in Predicting the Source of Fecal Contamination in Subtropical Waters. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.
66: 3698-3704
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Dombek, P. E., Johnson, L. K., Zimmerley, S. T., Sadowsky, M. J.
(2000). Use of Repetitive DNA Sequences and the PCR To Differentiate Escherichia coli Isolates from Human and Animal Sources. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.
66: 2572-2577
[Abstract]
[Full Text]