Burnet Jean-Baptiste. Dinh Quoc T., Ceccantini J., Servais P., M. Prévost and S. Dorner

Transcription

1 Burnet Jean-Baptiste Dinh Quoc T., Ceccantini J., Servais P., M. Prévost and S. Dorner 2017 AWWA Water Quality Technology Conference Portland, Oregon November 12-16, 2017

2 Introduction Monitoring of microbiological water quality E. coli most used indicator of fecal pollution USEPA 1604 MI agar IDEXX Colilert Real time PCR Introduction Methodology Results Conclusions 2

3 Introduction Need for rapid and autonomous methods 1x/day at best, usually 1x/week or 1x/month 24-48h Introduction Methodology Results Conclusions 3

4 Introduction Growing interest for rapid online monitoring of microbial water quality 4

5 Introduction In quest for rapid assays: Measurement of E. coli β-d-glucuronidase activity (GLUC) Koschelnik et al Introduction Methodology Results Conclusions 5

6 Introduction Recent technological progresses Technology Principle Time to result TECTA B16 Culture 2 to 12 h Partially ColiFast Culture 6 to 15 h Fluidion Culture 5 to 11 h ColiSense Enzymatic 75 min Partially GLUC activity BactControl Enzymatic 2 h ColiMinder Enzymatic 30 min Automated Quantitative? Online? Introduction Methodology Results Conclusions 6

7 Objectives Assess analytical performance of GLUC activity measurement Compare with established culture-based methods for E. coli enumeration Describe fine temporal dynamics of E. coli in water Introduction Methodology Results Conclusions 7

8 Objectives Assess analytical performance of GLUC activity measurement Compare with established culture-based methods for E. coli enumeration Describe fine temporal dynamics of E. coli in water Introduction Methodology Results Conclusions 8

9 Online measurement of GLUC activity using ColiMinder technology Koschelnik et al Introduction Methodology Results Conclusions 9

10 Online GLUC activity measurement Experimental approach Greater Montreal Area River water Drinking water intake Are measurements reliable? Are measurements reproducible? Are there any interferences? How does it compare to culture-based methods? Introduction Methodology Results Conclusions 10

11 Coefficient of variation (%) GLUC activity measurement reliable? CV from 6 analytical replicates Background Methodology Results Conclusions 11

12 GLUC activity (mmfu/100 ml) GLUC activity measurement reproducible? 95 triplicate measurements Average CV = 3.5 % Max CV = 16.2 % Min CV = 0.3 % Background Methodology Results Conclusions 12

13 GLUC activity measurement interferences? Assessment of potential matrix interferences River water matrix spikes 90/10 Matrix River water (intake) 99/1 99.9/0.1 Raw sewage impact of CSOs Treated wastewater impact of WWTP effluents River sediments impact of sediment resuspension Background Methodology Results Conclusions 13

14 GLUC activity measurement interferences? 90/ /0.1 99/1 Background Methodology Results Conclusions 14

15 Observed GLUC activity (mmfu/100 ml) GLUC activity measurement interferences? Sediments 68 UTN 90/10 21 UTN 25 UTN 99/1 99.9/0.1 Expected GLUC activity (mmfu/100 ml) Background Methodology Results Conclusions 15

16 Objectives Assess analytical performance of GLUC activity measurement Compare with established culture-based methods for E. coli enumeration Describe fine temporal dynamics of E. coli in water Introduction Methodology Results Conclusions 16

17 GLUC activity link with culturable E. coli? Culture vs culture Background Methodology Results Conclusions 17

18 GLUC activity link with culturable E. coli? GLUC vs culture Background Methodology Results Conclusions 18

19 GLUC activity link with culturable E. coli? GLUC vs culture Background Methodology Results Conclusions 19

20 GLUC activity link with culturable E. coli? GLUC vs culture Background Methodology Results Conclusions 20

21 Objectives Assess analytical performance of GLUC activity measurement Compare with established culture-based methods for E. coli enumeration Describe fine temporal dynamics of E. coli in water Introduction Methodology Results Conclusions 21

22 GLUC activity peaks during online monitoring DWTP Greater Montreal Area 1 2 Background Methodology Results Conclusions 22

23 GLUC activity peaks during online monitoring GLUC activity peak 1 Background Methodology Results Conclusions 23

24 GLUC activity peaks during online monitoring GLUC activity peak 2 Background Methodology Results Conclusions 24

25 GLUC activity peaks during online monitoring DWTP Greater Montreal Area 3 Background Methodology Results Conclusions 25

26 GLUC activity (mmfu/100 ml) GLUC activity vs culturable E. coli GLUC activity peak 3 April 5, 2017 E. coli (CFU/100 ml) R Background Methodology Results Conclusions 26

27 Added value of online monitoring? Detect hidden contamination peaks Week end Introduction Méthodologie Results Conclusions 27

28 Conclusions Good analytical performance of ColiMinder technology Repeatability: CV < 8% Reproducibility : mean CV < 4% (95 measurements in triplicates) No apparent matrix interferences (raw or treated sewage, sediments) Relationship between GLUC activity and culturable E. coli Very similar trends during contamination peaks Overall relationship (including baseflow samples) Relationship affected by fecal pollution dynamics (and age?) Promising for the implementation of online GLUC measurement towards automated long-term monitoring of fecal pollution in surface water Background Methodology Results Conclusions 28

29 Ongoing and future work Analysis of the importance of VBNC populations on GLUC activity signal vs culture-based methods Long term deployment of ColiMinder technology at Canadian drinking water intakes : new project Relationship between GLUC activity dynamics, catchment features and hydrometerology Relationship between GLUC activity and pathogen occurrence Use of GLUC activity dynamics for source tracking Modelling of GLUC activity data and forecasting Introduction Méthodologie Résultats Conclusions 29

30 Acknowledgements CICEP staff CICEP and CRC students Joïa Ceccantini Tuc Quoc Emile Sylvestre Mounia Hachad Lyne El Jamil Elisa Malepart Philippe Cantin (CEAEQ) Wolfgang Vogl (VWM Solutions GmBH) Alain Blais (Le Groupe Aquacion Inc.) Introduction Méthodologie Résultats Conclusions 30

31 Thank you for your attention!