Geology topics

Erin Dreelin

Publications and source records attributed to Erin Dreelin.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2020

A comparison of E. coli concentration estimates quantified by the EPA and a Michigan laboratory network using EPA Draft Method C

We evaluated data from 10 laboratories that analyzed water samples from 82 recreational water sites across the state of Michigan between 2016 and 2018. Water sample replicates were analyzed by experienced U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) analysts and Michigan laboratories personnel, many of whom were newly trained, using EPA Draft Method C—a rapid quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) technique that provides same day Escherichia coli ( E. coli ) concentration results. Beach management decisions (i.e. remain open or issue an advisory or closure) based on E. coli concentration estimates obtained by Michigan labs and by the EPA were compared; the beach management decision agreed in 94% of the samples analyzed. We used the Wilcoxon one-sample signed rank test and nonparametric quantile regression to assess (1) the degree of agreement between E. coli concentrations quantified by Michigan labs versus the EPA and (2) Michigan lab E. coli measurement precision, relative to EPA results, in different years and water body types. The median quantile regression curve for Michigan labs versus EPA approximated the 1:1 line of perfect agreement more closely as years progressed. Similarly, Michigan lab E. coli estimates precision also demonstrated yearly improvements. No meaningful difference was observed in the degree of association between Michigan lab and EPA E. coli concentration estimates for inland lake and Great Lakes samples (median regression curve average slopes 0.93 and 0.95, respectively). Overall, our study shows that properly trained laboratory personnel can perform Draft Method C to a degree comparable with experienced EPA analysts. This allows health departments that oversee recreational water quality monitoring to be confident in qPCR results generated by the local laboratories responsible for analyzing the water samples.

Journal of Microbiological Methods↗

USGS2019

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.

Water Research↗

USGS2019

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 log 10 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.

Water Research↗