Use of Microbial Source Tracking in the Legal Arena: Benefits and Challenges

  • Christopher M. Teaf
  • Michele M. Garber
  • Valerie J. Harwood


Public health risks attributable to microbial pathogens are of serious concern and their evaluation is necessary to provide assurances of safety for food, drinking water supplies, recreational surface waters, beneficial water reuse (e.g., irrigation of areas accessible to the public), health care, and other applications. Litigation or other legal processes that may arise from individual infection/illness claims, from claims of damage to a public resource, or from criminal cases, often are practically limited by the ability to identify an unambiguous source of a putative infectious agent or ­pollution source with a high degree of certainty. Applied in rigorous fashion, microbial source tracking (MST) has the potential to assist in identification of likely bacterial or viral agents with both accuracy and precision. Satisfaction of the relevant contemporary scientific criteria for demonstration of a persuasive linkage is not necessarily sufficient to satisfy applicable legal criteria. A working understanding of acceptable requirements for both the technical and legal audiences is useful to scientists who seek to apply the principles and practices of MST within the legal process.


Risk Public health Legal Pathogens Safety Litigation 


  1. AAM (2003) Microbial Forensics: A Scientific Assessment. American Academy of Microbiology/American Society of Microbiology, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  2. Bernstein, D. (2002) Disinterested in Daubert: State courts lag behind in opposing “junk” science. Washington Legal Foundation, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  3. Bitton G (2005) Microbial indicators of fecal contamination: Application to microbial source tracking. Department of Environmental Engineering Sciences University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.Google Scholar
  4. Blanch A, Belanche-Munoz L, Bonjoch X et al. (2006) Integrated analysis of established and novel microbial and chemical methods for microbial source tracking. J Environ Microbiol 72(9):5915–5926.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brownell MB, Harwood VJ, Kurz RC et al. (2007) Confirmation of putative stormwater impact on water quality at a Florida beach by microbial source tracking methods and structure of indicator organism populations. Water Res 41:3747–3757.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Buchan A, Alber M, Hodson R (2001) Strain-specific differentiation of environmental Escherichia coli isolates via denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis (DGGE) analysis of the 16S-23S intergenic spacer region. FEMS Microbiol Ecology 35:313–321.Google Scholar
  7. Budowle B, Schutzer S, Ascher M, et al. (2005) Toward a system of microbial forensics: from sample collection to interpretation of evidence. Appl Environ Microbiol 71(5):2209–2213.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Calhoun, M C. (2008) Scientific evidence in court: Daubert or Frye, 15 years later. Washington Legal Foundation, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  9. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1993) 509 US 579.Google Scholar
  10. Duran M, Haznedaroglu B, Zitomer D (2006) Microbial source tracking using host specific FAME profiles of fecal coliforms. Water Res 40:67–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Duran M, Yurtsever D, Dunaev T (2009) Choice of indicator organism and library size considerations for phenotypic microbial source tracking of FAME profiling. Water Sci Tech 60(10):2659–2668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Edge T, Schaefer K (eds.) (2006) Microbial source tracking in aquatic ecosystems: The state of the science and an assessment of needs. National Water Research Institute, Burlington, Ontario. NWRI Scientific Assessment Report Series No. 7 and Linking Water Science to Policy Workshop Series. 23 p.Google Scholar
  13. Federal Rules of Evidence (2006)
  14. Frye v. United States (1923) 54 App. D. C. 46, 293 F. 1013.Google Scholar
  15. Graves AK, Hagedorn C, Brooks A et al. (2007) Microbial source tracking in a rural watershed dominated by cattle. Water Res 41:3729–3739.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Griffith J, Weisberg S, McGee C (2003) Evaluation of microbial source tracking methods using mixed fecal sources in aqueous test samples. J Water Health 1(4):141–151.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Hagedorn C, Robinson SL, Filtz JR et al. (1999) Determining sources of fecal pollution in a rural Virginia watershed with antibiotic resistance patterns in fecal streptococci. Appl Environ Microbiol 65:5522–5531.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Hagedorn C, Benham B, Zeckoski S (2009) Microbial source tracking and the TMDL (total maximum daily loads) process. Virginia Cooperative Extension Pub 442–554.Google Scholar
  19. Harmon, R. (2005) Admissibility standards for scientific evidence. In: Breeze, R, Budowle, B and Shutzer, S, editors, Microbial Forensics. Elsevier Academic, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  20. Hartel P, Summer J, Hill J et al. (2002) Geographic variability of Escherichia coli ribotypes from animals in Idaho and Georgia. J Environ Qual 31:1273–1278.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hartel P, Summer J, Segars W (2003) Deer diet affects ribotype diversity of Escherichia coli for bacterial source tracking. Water Res 37:3263–3268.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Harwood V, Wiggins B, Hagedorn C et al. (2003) Phenotypic library-based microbial source tracking methods: Efficiency in the California collaborative study. J Water Health 1(4):153–166.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Hsu F, Shieh Y, van Duin J et al. (1995) Genotyping male-specific coliphages by hybridization with oligonucleotide probes. Appl Environ Microbiol 61:3960–3966.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Hundesa A, Bofill-Mas S, Maluquer de Motes C et al. (2010) Development of a quantitative PCR assay for the quantitation of bovine polyomavirus as a microbial source tracking tool. J Virol Met 163(2): 385–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Indest K, Betts K, Furey J (2005) Application of oligonucleotide microarrays for bacterial source tracking of environmental Enterococcus sp. Isolates. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2(1):175–185.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jellison KL, Lynch AE, Ziemann JM (2009) Source tracking identifies deer and geese as vectors of human-infectious Cryptosporidium genotypes in an urban/suburban watershed. Environ Sci Technol. 43(12):4267–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jiang S, Chu W, Olson B et al. (2007) Microbial source tracking in a small southern California urban watershed indicates wild animals and growth as the source of fecal bacteria. Environ Biotech 76:927–934.Google Scholar
  28. Koblenz G, Tucker J (2010) Tracing an attack: The promise and pitfalls of microbial forensics. Survival 52(1):159–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kon T, Weir S, Howell E et al. (2009) Repetitive element (REP)-polymerase chain reaction (PCR) analysis of Escherichia coli isolates from recreational waters of southeastern Lake Huron. Can J Microbiol 55:269–276.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Korajkic A, Badgley B, Brownell B et al. (2009) Application of microbial source tracking methods in a Gulf of Mexico field setting. J App Microbiol 107:1518–1527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kuntz R, Hartel P, Godfrey D et al. (2003) Targeted sampling protocol as prelude to bacterial source tracking with Enterococcus faecalis. J Environ Qual 32:2311–2318.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lasalde C, Rodriguez R, Toranzos G (2005) Statistical analyses: Possible reasons for unreliability of source tracking efforts. Appl Environ Microbiol 71(8):4690–4695.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lee J, Lim M, Kim S et al. (2009) Molecular characterization of bacteriophages for microbial source tracking in Korea. Appl Environ Microbiol 75(22):7101–7114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Long S, Plummer J (2008) Using microbial source tracking in watershed management: Is high quality source water sustainable? AWWA Sustainable Water Sources Conference, Reno, NV, February 10–13.Google Scholar
  35. Mahle S (1999) The impact of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., on expert testimony with applications to securities litigation. The Florida Bar Journal, Volume LXXIII, No. 3. 36 p.Google Scholar
  36. McEwen S, Wilson T, Ashford D et al. (2006) Microbial forensics for natural and intentional incidents of infectious disease involving animals. Rev Sci Tech Off Int Epiz 25(1):329–339.Google Scholar
  37. McQuaig S, Scott T, Lukasik J et al. (2009) Quantification of human polyomaviruses JC Virus and BK Virus by TaqMan quantitative PCR and comparison to other water quality indicators in water and fecal samples. Appl Environ Microbiol 75:3379–88.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Michaels D and Monforton C. (2005) Manufacturing uncertainty: Contested science and the protection of the public’s health and the environment. Am J Public Health 95(S1): 39–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Moore D, Harwood V, Ferguson D et al. (2005) Evaluation of antibiotic resistance analysis and ribotyping for identification of faecal pollution sources in an urban watershed. J Appl Microbiol 99:618–628.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. National Research Council (NRC; 2009) Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States. National Research Council or the National Academies, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  41. Osawa S, Furuse K, Watanabe I (1981) Distribution of ribonucleic acid coliphages in animals. Appl Environ Microbiol 41:164–168.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Pattnaik P and Jana A (2005) Microbial forensics: Applications in bioterrorism. Environ Forensics 6:197–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. PBS&J (2008) Fecal BMAP Implementation: Source Identification, Hillsborough River Watershed, Final Summary Report, Prepared for the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee, FL
  44. Puig A, Queralt N, Jofre J et al. (1999) Diversity of Bacteriodes fragilis strains in their capacity to recover phages from human and animal wastes and from fecally polluted wastewater. Appl Environ Microbiol 65:1772–1776.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Reischer G., Haider J, Sommer R et al. (2008) Quantitative microbial faecal source tracking with sampling guided by hydrological catchment dynamics. Environ Microbiol 19(10):2598–2608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Ritter K, Carruthers E, Carson C et al. (2003) Assessment of statistical methods used in library-based approaches to microbial source tracking. J Water Health 1(4):209–223.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Salyers A (2004) Microbes in court: The emerging field of microbial forensics. Available at; Accessed March 21, 2010.
  48. Scott T, Parveen S, Portier K et al. (2003) Geographical variation in ribotype profiles of Escherichia coli isolates from humans, swine, poultry, beef, and dairy cattle in Florida. Appl Environ Microbiol 69(2):1089–1092.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Scott T, Caren J, Nelson GR et al. (2004) Tracking sources of fecal pollution in a South Carolina watershed by ribotyping Escherichia coli: A case study. Environ Forensics 5:15–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Seurinck S, Verstraete W, Siciliano S (2005) Microbial source tracking for identification of fecal pollution. Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol 4:19–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sharp E (2009) Scientific evidence and the courts. In: Leestma J (ed) Forensic Neuropathology, 2nd edn. Taylor & Francis, Florida.Google Scholar
  52. Simpson J, Santo Domingo J, Reasoner D (2002) Microbial source tracking: State of the science. Environ Sci Tech 36(24):5279–5288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Soil & Water Conservation Society of Metro Halifax (SWCSMH; 2006) Bacterial Source Tracking (BST) - A Review.; accessed October 2009.
  54. Stapleton C, Wyer M, Kay D et al. (2007) Microbial source tracking: a forensic technique for microbial source identification. J Environ Monit 9:427–439.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Stoeckel D, Mathes M, Hyer K et al. (2004) Comparison of seven protocols to identify fecal contamination sources using Escherichia coli. Environ Sci Technol 38:6109–6117.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Stoeckel D (2005) Selection and application of microbial source tracking tools for water-quality investigations: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods Book 2, Chapter A3, 43 p.Google Scholar
  57. Stoeckel D and Harwood V. (2007) Performance, design, and analysis in microbial source tracking studies. Appl Environ Microbiol 73(8):2405–2415.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Tartera C, Lucena F, Jofre J (1989) Human origin of Bacteroides fragilis bacteriophages present in the environment. Appl Environ Microbiol 55:2696–2701.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Tellus Institute (2003) Daubert: The Most Influential Supreme Court Decision You’ve Never Heard Of. Project on Scientific Knowledge and Public Policy (SKAPP). Tellus Institute, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
  60. Unger S (2008),viewfull&po=B2DDBB17.Google Scholar
  61. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA; 2005) Microbial Source Tracking Guide Document. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH.Google Scholar
  62. Weidhaas J, Macbeth T, Olsen R et al. (2010) Identification of a Brevibacterium marker gene specific to poultry litter and development of a quantitative PCR assay. J Appl Microbiol 109(1):334–347.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Wuertz S, Bombardelli F, Sirikanchana K et al. (2009) Quantitative pathogen detection & microbial source tracking combined with modeling the fate and transport of Bacteroidales in San Pablo Bay. Report submitted to The NOAA/UNH Cooperative Institute for Coastal and Estuarine Environmental Technology (CICEET).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christopher M. Teaf
  • Michele M. Garber
  • Valerie J. Harwood
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Integrative BiologyUniversity of South FloridaTampaUSA

Personalised recommendations