Midwest Volunteer Bacteria Project: Developing Consistent Training and Monitoring Methods

1
Midwest Volunteer Bacteria Project Developing
Consistent Trainingand Monitoring Methods
2
Project Partners
3
Funding

• Source CSREES, Integrated Research, Extension,
  Education Project
• 275,000 to 6 states
• October 1, 2003 September 30, 2006

4
Project Goals

• To determine the accuracy and reliability of E.
  coli test kits when used by volunteers
• To recommend a test kit for use by volunteers
• To produce training curriculum and educational
  materials for volunteers and general audiences
• Go in the same direction!!

5
Why research E. coli test kits?

• Waters impaired by bacteria across U.S.
• Many different kits being used
• No comparative, independent study of how well
  kits work

• For Iowa, is there a better method available
  than what the IOWATER Program currently uses

6
Indicator Bacteria

• Bacteria from feces of warm-blooded animals
• Easy to collect and analyze, relatively safe to
  handle and are usually present when pathogens are
  present
• Generally harmless
• Present in higher number than pathogens
• Does not persist in the environment

7
Sources of fecal matter
Washington State Department of Ecology

• Human dirty diapers, swimming accidents,
  malfunctioning septic systems, sewage treatment
  plant discharges, leaking sewage lagoons
• Animals (warm blooded animals) direct
  contribution, overflowing lagoons, runoff from
  fields after manure application, manure spills,
  storm water runoff from lands with wildlife or
  pet droppings

UNI Environmental Programs
NOAA Coastal Services Center
8
Why Citizens Monitoring Bacteria?

• Volunteers extend limited agency resources
• Cost of lab analysis prohibitively high and
  access to certified labs is problematic
• Citizens are interested and
• knowledgeable about their
• local streams
• Citizens want an easy,
• reliable, inexpensive test kit

9
Project Overview

• Year 1
• Pilot testing 5 kits in 2 states (Iowa and
  Indiana) ? recommendation
• Develop training and supporting materials
• Year 2
• Implement recommendation in 6 states
• Evaluate data and training methods
• Year 3
• Share results and materials
• Continue watershed monitoring support

10
Testing 5 methods Iowa Indiana

• 5 Kits
• Coliscan Easy Gel (incubated)
• Coliscan Easy Gel (not incubated)
• 3M Petrifilm
• Coliscan MF Method Kit (IN only)
• Colisure Method with IDEXX Quanti-Tray/2000 (IA
  only)
• Testing spring, summer, fall 2004
• Water sample sent to lab for analysis
• Will recommend the best kit for volunteers
• Based on accuracy, reliability, cost, ease of use

11
Quality Assurance

• Using one lab in Iowa for pilot samples
• Using certified labs for all phases
• Splits and replicates for both lab samples and
  test kits
• Centralized data management and statistical
  analysis

12
Quality Assurance Volunteer Training

• Explicit protocols and instructions
• Pre/post surveys of volunteer experience,
  knowledge, and goals
• Consistent training methods across the region for
  volunteers
• Three-year project to test and refine training
  methods

13
Developing Materials

• Visual identifier
• General fact sheets
• Training curriculum
• Pre/post tests, survey instruments
• Other outreach promotional materials
• Results of research and outreach efforts
  (evaluation component)

14
Implementing Recommendation

• IA and IN will transition volunteers to
  recommended procedure
• MN, MI, OH, WI will support teams of volunteers
  in multiple watersheds
• Samples will be collected for analysis
• by test kits and certified lab
• Will continue to track accuracy and
• user preferences

15
Evaluating Data and Training Methods

• Comparing accuracy of lab
• vs. kit analyses
• Pre/post testing for training
• effectiveness and knowledge
• gained
• Volunteers results will be
• tracked by past experience, training, and
  frequency
• Volunteers and trainers will be surveyed about
  methods and protocols

16
Collection of Water Samples
17
Coliscan Easy Gel (incubated and not incubated)
18
3MTM PetrifilmTM
19
Coliscan Membrane Filtration
20
ColisureTM with the IDEXX Quanti-Tray/2000
21
Throughout 2004

• Volunteers from Iowa and Indiana collected water
  samples and analyzed with each test kit.
• Last samples used in decision making process were
  taken in December.
• Thats Dedication!!!!

22
Results

• Dataoh no!!!

• Dont fill our head with piles of numbers.
• What is the important stuff and how can a
  decision be made?

23
Results

• Evaluation of
• Ability to make distinctions on impaired waters
  (235 cfu/100ml)
• Natural log regression models
• Cost of kits
• User friendliness (volunteer preferences)
• So what did this yield?

24
ResultsIdentifying Impairments

• Four methods were statistically significant for
  predicting above or below regulatory cutoffs!!!
• Only Cosiscan MF was insignifficant.
• Methods with best results (1-4)
• IDEXX Colisure
• 3MTM PetrifilmTM
• Easy Gel Incubated
• Easy Gel Non Incubated

25
ResultsRegression Models

• Statistical difference between lab and volunteer
  data for all data collected in 2004????????
• Kits showing best relationship between volunteer
  and lab values are
• IDEXX Colisure
• 3MTM PetrifilmTM
• Easy Gel Incubated
• That only throws out
• Easy Gel Non Incubated

26
Results Cost of Kits
Value would be much lower if ordered in greater
bulk.
27
ResultsVolunteer Preference

• Based on End of Season Evaluations
• Results indicated 3M Petrifilm was preferred
• Small sample size (pool of volunteers evaluated)
• Have graded high in all evaluations

28
Preliminary Decision

• And the winner is
• Well, the winners are
• Incubated Coliscan Easy Gel
• 3MTM PetrifilmTM
• Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin will
  begin using these kits in the spring of 2005.
• Iowa and Indiana volunteersas always
  overachievers
• Monitoring all 5 methods during 2005

29
Iowa Volunteers Participating

• Special Thanks to
• Ed Askew
• Katie Foreman
• Gaylan and Lloyd Crim
• John Michael Villarama
• Marty St. Clair
• Matt Bream
• Vicki Wilson

30
Questions???