Coliphage and adenovirus concentrations per liter. This dataset is associated with the following publication: Gassie, L., J. Englehardt, J. Wang, N. Brinkman, J. Garland, P. Gardinali, and T. Guo. Mineralizing urban net-zero water treatment: Phase II field results and design recommendations. WATER RESEARCH. Elsevier Science Ltd, New York, NY, USA, 105: 496-506, (2016).

This data set describes changes in concentrations of somatic and F+ coliphages and adenovirus in freshwater under the influence of different biotic and abiotic factors. This dataset is associated with the following publication: McMinn, B., E. Rhodes, E. Webster, and A. Korajkic. Decay of infectious adenovirus and coliphages in freshwater habitats is differentially affected by ambient sunlight and the presence of indigenous protozoa communities. JOURNAL OF VIROLOGY. American Society for Microbiology, Washington, DC, USA, 17: 1, (2020).

Coliphage are alternative fecal indicators that may be suitable surrogates for viral pathogens, but a majority of standard detection methods utilize insufficient sample volumes (1-100 mL) for routine detection in environmental waters. Here we compare three somatic and F+ coliphage enumeration methods based on a paired measurement from 1L samples collected from the Great Lakes region (n=74). Methods include: 1) a dead-end hollow fiber ultrafilter combined with single agar layer plaque assay (D-HFUF-SAL); 2) a modified SAL (M-SAL); and 3) a direct membrane filtration (DMF) technique. Overall, D-HFUF-SAL outperformed all other methods as it yielded the lowest frequency of non-detects [(ND); 10.8%] and the highest average coliphage concentrations (2.51 ± 1.02 log10 plaque forming unit/liter (PFU/L) and 0.79 ± 0.71 log10 PFU/L for somatic and F+, respectively). M-SAL yielded 29.7% ND and average concentrations of 2.26 ± 1.15 log10 PFU/L (somatic) and 0.59 ± 0.82 log10 PFU/L (F+). DMF performed worse compared to D-HFUF-SAL and M-SAL methods (ND of 65.6%; average somatic coliphage concentration 1.52 ± 1.32 log10 PFU/L, with no F+ detected), indicating this procedure is unsuitable for 1L surface water sample volumes. This study represents an important step toward the use of a coliphage method for recreational water quality criteria purposes. This dataset is associated with the following publication: McMinn, B., E. Rhodes, E. Huff, P. Wanjugi, M. Ware, S. Nappier, M. Cyterski, O. Shanks, K. Oshima, and A. Korajkic. Comparison of somatic and F+ coliphage enumeration methods with large volume surface water samples. JOURNAL OF VIROLOGICAL METHODS. Elsevier Science Ltd, New York, NY, USA, 261: 63-66, (2018).