Water Quality Analysis of Barnegat Bay Along Long Beach Island Bay Beaches

Jess Harkness

Alec Farrell

Sophia Piper

Save Barnegat Bay Student Grant Program

Submitted 14 August 2017

 Abstract

Long Beach Island has 18 miles of ocean and bay beach frontage that is used

recreationally throughout summer months. Assessing the water quality of both the ocean and the

bay are equally important; however, there is less understood about the water quality of the bay

beaches. To get a better understanding about the water quality along bay beaches, six locations

along LBI’s bay coast, ranging from Holgate to Barnegat Light, were sampled once per week for

eight weeks, from June 5 to July 24, 2017. In addition to fecal coliform bacteria, these sample

locations were tested for several other parameters including turbidity, relative chlorophyll, pH,

and dissolved oxygen. Comparative methods were used to test for ​Escherichia coli (​E. coli​),

using both fecal coliform bacteria and enterococcus bacteria as indicators at each site. Our results

indicate that fecal coliform levels were well below the swimming safety limit for all beaches

throughout the course of the study, except for the testing locations in Beach Haven and Barnegat

Light on July 24​th​. Barnegat Light was a location that generally had higher ​E. coli levels than the

other five bay beaches each week. These results indicate that the water quality and the sewage

system in Barnegat Light may require further examination.

1
Introduction

Barnegat Bay is the largest body of water in New Jersey and an essential watershed for

the people as well as the organisms that reside within it. As population continues to grow, open

space is being developed into urban land, reducing the watershed’s ability to recharge

groundwater and filter nutrients. On December 9, 2010, Governor Chris Christie announced a

comprehensive action plan to address the ecological health of the 660-square-mile Barnegat Bay

watershed. This plan is still implemented as goals are being reached even after major setbacks

due to Superstorm Sandy. The Ocean County Health Department conducts weekly testing at

Barnegat Bay to ensure that the water quality is in safe swimming range. ​Enterococcus​ bacteria

is the primary indicator for​ E. coli ​detection in marine waters. A U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) approved method for testing marine waters is called Enterolert®, which is not an

acceptable means of ​E. coli d​ etection in New Jersey. Although ​Enterococci​ sp. took the place of

fecal coliforms as the new USA federal standard for water quality at public saltwater beaches in

2004, the Enterolert® test does not detect ​Salmonella,​ ​Aeromonas spp ​and other fecal coliforms.

Since the water in the bay is brackish, the Save Barnegat Bay Water Quality Team thought it

would be a good comparative study to compare two other freshwater bacteriological tests with

the saltwater Enterolert® test. The first freshwater test, ECA Check® can detect ​E. coli,​

Salmonella​, ​Aeromonas spp, and​ other coliforms, while the other, Coliscan® is used solely for

detecting ​E. coli​. This suggests the hypothesis that Coliscan® will have a more accurate ability

to detect ​E. coli.

After sampling six different locations every week along Long Beach Island bay beaches,

from June 5​th​ to July 24​th​, the Water Quality Team concluded that there is not a significant

2
difference in the ability of Coliscan®, ECA Check®, and Enterolert® to detect ​E. coli. I​ n

addition to fecal coliform bacteria, these sample locations were tested for other general water

quality parameters including dissolved oxygen, conductivity, salinity, turbidity, relative

chlorophyll, and pH. The final results after sampling was completed conclude that all the

parameters for the most part were in the expected range. The Bacteria levels remained below the

swimming safety limit except for on July 24​th​ when a summer storm caused significant flooding

on the island.

Methodology

Study Sites

For this study, six bay beaches were selected as testing sites along Long Beach Island:

three on the north side and three on the south side. W 25​th​ Street in Barnegat Light, W 75​th​ Street

in Harvey Cedars, N 16​th​ Street in Surf City were on the north side and 70​th​ Street in Long Beach

Township, Taylor Avenue​ ​in Beach Haven, and Pershing Avenue in Holgate were on the south

side. These sites were chosen to be relatively equidistant, so that the general water quality of the

Island as a whole could be assessed.

3
Table 1: Specific testing site locations including the GPS points along the Barnegat Bay beaches at Long
Beach Island, New Jersey.
Site # Site Name GPS Location

1 W 25​th​ Street, Barnegat Light 39º 46.222'N 74º 11.327'W

2 W 75​th​ Street, Harvey Cedars 39º 42.266'N 74º 8.229'W

3 N 16​th​ Street, Surf City 39º 40.013'N 74º 10.030'W

4 70​th​ Street, Long Beach 39º 36.954'N 74º 12.089'W

Township

5 Taylor Avenue, Beach Haven 39º34.199'N 74º14.380'W

6 Pershing Avenue, Holgate 39º 32.160'N 74º 15.837'W

4
Figure 1: Satellite Image of Study Sites Relative to New Jersey. Each of the six locations from Barnegat
Light (north) to Holgate (south) were sampled and tested one a week from June 5 - July 24, 2017.

Sampling

1. Collection

Sampling generally began at 8:30am every Monday morning. At each site, three water

samples were collected in 250 mL bottles and one was collected in a WhirlPak® field sampling

bag. All samples were stored in a cooler at 4 o​​ C and immediately brought back to the lab at the

MATES School in Manahawkin, New Jersey. Samples collected in the bottles were to be used to

test for relative chlorophyll, turbidity (NTUs), and pH. Samples in the WhirlPak bags were to be

used for bacteriological testing.

2. General Water Quality Parameters

A YSI-85 meter was used to collect general water quality parameters including water

temperature (ºC), dissolved oxygen (mg/L), conductance (mS/cm), conductivity (mS/cm), and

salinity (ppt). The water level at all sites was relatively shallow, never going much over about

5
0.5 m. Samples were usually collected at a depth of about 0.25 m, depending on tides. The YSI

85 probe was held at a similar depth.

3. Relative Chlorophyll and Turbidity

At each site, an Aquafluor Handheld Fluorometer was used to determine relative

chlorophyll and a LaMotte 2020 Turbidimeter was used to determine the turbidity of the water in

the lab after the samples were brought back from the collection sites. For both tests alike, water

from each of the three 250 mL samples from a given site was tested, and the resulting values

were averaged.

4. pH

An Oakion® pH meter was used to determine the pH at each site. Unlike the turbidity

and relative chlorophyll tests, only one of the three 250 mL samples collected at each site was

used to test pH. This is because in the beginning of the study, all three were used and values

were, for all practical purposes, the same. Also, the pH meter took the longest of all of the

meters; thus, using just one sample from each site saved time in the lab.

5. Meteorological Parameters (wind speed and air temperature)

The Kestrel 1000 Wind Meter was used to measure wind speed (mph) and a

Thermochron Thermocouple Reader (Type-T) was used to record air temperatures (​o​C; ​+​ 0.5​o​C).

About halfway through the eight-week study, the thermometer broke, so data from the NOAA

Weather App was used at each given site.

6. Coliscan Easygel ® and ECA Check ® (​E. coli​, relative coliforms, ​Aeromonas spp.​,

and ​salmonella​, all measured in colony forming units)

6
 Two of the methods used in this study to determine the presence of certain bacteria were

Coliscan Easygel ® and ECA Check ®. As aforementioned, Coliscan only indicates ​E. coli​ and

relative coliforms, while ECA Check indicates ​E.coli,​ relative coliforms, ​Aeromonas spp.,​ and

Salmonella.​ At each site, three Coliscan tests and two ECA Check tests were performed. A

control test was also performed using the Coliscan solution and deionized water.

The procedure for these two methods are basically the same – the only difference being

the solution used. First, 1 mL of sample is taken from a WhirlPak bag and added into a solution

either of Coliscan Easygel or ECA Check. The solution is then shaken and added into a

pre-treated petri dish, where it is then is allowed to solidify. Once solid, the sample is then

incubated at approximately 37ºC for twenty-four hours in an incubator.

A color chart was used to read the samples. A color corresponded with a certain type of

bacteria colony. In Coliscan, ​E.coli​ colonies were blue and relative coliforms were pink. In ECA

Check, ​E. coli​ colonies were dark blue/indigo, relative coliforms were grey/grey-blue,

Aeromonas spp.​ were pink, and ​Salmonella​ were teal. For each sample, colonies of each type of

bacteria were counted, and the values multiplied by 100 to achieve the unit Colony Forming

Units per 100mL (Figure 2).

7
Figure 2. Left: Coliscan and ECA Check 10 mL solution bottles in which we tested using 1 ml of field
sample water. Right: Color indicator of the ECA Check, which is a broad test for gram positive bacteria
types.

​ nterococcus​)
7. Enterolert (E

The other method used to in this study to detect bacteria –​Enterococcus​ specifically – is

Enterolert®. One Enterolert test was done per site, plus a duplicate and a control. The duplicate

was always done on a site that tended to show more bacteria than the other five.

First, 90 mL of deionized water and 10 mL of water sample from the Whirl Pak were

added into a sterilized graduated cylinder. Then the Enterolert® reagent pack was added and the

graduated cylinder sealed and shaken until the reagent was completely dissolved. The solution

was then poured into an IDEXX Quanti-Tray and sealed in a Quanti-Tray sealer. Finally, the tray

was incubated at a temperature of 41ºC for 24 hours.

8
 After incubation, the tests were read by shining a black light over the trays and counting

the fluorescing large wells and the fluorescing small wells, and comparing the total to a most

probable number (MPN) table, which is included with the Enterolert tests (Figure 3). This

number was multiplied by ten since we accounted for the dilution factor.

​
Figure 3. Enterolert results using the tray system after incubation at 41 o​ C for 24 hours. Using a
blacklight, positive results are indicated by fluorescence where the number of large wells and small wells
that fluoresce. The total number of each type of well is converted to Colonies per 100 ml using an
Enterolert specific conversion table.

Results

1)​ ​Turbidity

Turbidity is the measure of the clarity of a liquid. High turbidity levels may indicate the presence

of particles in the water that could provide attachment places for pollutants, particularly metals

9
and bacteria; thus, high turbidity readings could be an indicator of pollution in a water sample.

Turbidity values hovered around a mean value of 4.5 NTU throughout the study. After major

rainfall events, turbidity would be expected to be found in higher levels due to particles from the

land washing into the water, but our results do not show a difference between turbidity levels

after rainfall and turbidity levels not after rainfall (Figure 4).

Figure 4: Shows turbidity values (NTU) for each sampling location over the eight weeks of the study.
Sampling dates that occurred after major rainfall events are indicated by red boxes.

2)​ ​Relative Chlorophyll

High relative chlorophyll levels in a water sample may also serve as an indicator of pollution,

since high chlorophyll levels are a potential side effect of algae blooms, which form as a result of

high nitrogen levels due to man-made pollution in the water. The mean value of relative

chlorophyll throughout the study was 0.729. There does not appear to be a difference between

10
chlorophyll levels after versus not after rainfall events. There are, however, spikes in chlorophyll

levels during high tides that are not present during low tides (Figure 5).

Figure 5. Relative chlorophyll values for each sampling location over the eight weeks of the study.
Sampling dates that occurred after major rainfall events are indicated by red boxes. The blue line
displays the tide of a given sampling day: when the line is at 1, it indicates a low tide, and when the line is
at 2, it indicates a high tide.

3)​ ​Dissolved Oxygen

Dissolved oxygen is the measure of the oxygen (mg/L) in a water sample. The mean dissolved

oxygen value over the eight week sampling period was 7.32 mg/L (Figure 6).

It is assumed that there is a positive relationship between chlorophyll and dissolved oxygen

levels, since high chlorophyll levels result from the presence of plankton and algae in the water,

and when these organisms perform photosynthesis, they produce oxygen. When the dissolved

oxygen and relative chlorophyll values from our samples were compared, there appears to be a

positive trend; however, the R-squared value is too low to report a correlation (Figure 7).

11
Figure 6: Shows dissolved oxygen levels (mg/L) for each sampling location over the eight weeks of the
study. Variations could be a result of chlorophyll values, wind and other factors that cause water to be
stirred up.

Figure 7: A comparison of relative chlorophyll levels with dissolved oxygen levels (mg/L) over
the course of the study. The R-squared value of 0.039 is too low to report a definite correlation
between the two variables.

12
4)​ ​Fecal Coliform Bacteria

The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) lists the freshwater

recreational bathing standard for fecal coliform bacteria as 200 cfu/100 ml. ​E. Coli​ levels

detected by ECA Check and Coliscan were far below the 200 cfu/100 ml safety limit for the

duration of the study, except for week eight, where the levels spike (Figure 8). It is important to

note that the samples from week eight were taken the day after a major rainfall event, and runoff

caused by the rainfall and flooding is a likely cause for the dramatic increase in ​E. coli​ levels.

There is only a significant difference between Coliscan and ECA Check’s ability to detect ​E.

Coli​ in a brackish water sample for week one’s comparison, which produced a p-value of 0.046.

Figure 8: The average CFU/100 ml of E. Coli for each week, as detected by Coliscan versus ECA Check.
Week 1 shows a significant difference between the results of the different methods, with a p-value of
0,046. The swimming safety limit is indicated by the red line at 200 cfu/100 ml.

13
Enterococcus​ levels, as detected by Enterolert, were also well below the NJDEP’s swimming

safety limit of 104 ​Enterococcus​ cfu/100 ml throughout the study (Figure 9), except for week

eight, where ​Enterococcus​ levels exceeded the limit at our sampling locations in Beach Haven

and Barnegat Light. Again, it is important to note that sampling for week eight occurred after a

major rainfall event, and runoff could be responsible for increased ​Enterococcus​ levels.

Figure 9: The Enterococcus values for each sampling location over the eight weeks of the study, as
detected by Enterolert. The swimming safety limit is indicated by the red line at 104 cfu/100 ml.

The comparison between the freshwater fecal coliform tests (ECA Check/Coliscan) and the salt

water test (Enterolert) did not yield significant results. It cannot be stated that one type of test is

more accurate than the other when it comes to detecting fecal coliform bacteria in a brackish

14
water environment. Both tests displayed higher than usual mean fecal coliform levels on week

eight (Figure 10).

Figure 10: Enterolert compared with ECA Check/Coliscan. The Enterolert test did not arrive until week
four of sampling, therefore there is only data for both tests from weeks four through eight.

Discussion

Our results indicated that there is no statistically significant difference between

​ fter running a T-Test for each week’s

Coliscan® and ECA Check’s® ability to detect ​E. coli. A

results only week one showed a difference with a an alpha less than 0.05, making it the only

week with a significant difference between the two tests. The other seven weeks were not

statistically backed up due to the large variability within data sets. Since we did not use the

15
Enterolert® until the fourth week of sampling, we ran an ANOVA test between the mean ​E. coli

from Coliscan® and ECA Check® versus the mean ​Enterococcus b​ y Enterolert®. Once again

the results depict that there is not a significant difference and that Enterolert® is likely not a

better indicator of ​E. coli.

The low bacteria levels during the first seven weeks of sampling can be attributed to

many factors, one of them being the flushing of the bay via the Little Egg and Barnegat Inlets. In

the summer, the wind is predominantly from the southwest (as seen in our data), driving water

northward through the Little Egg Inlet and out the Barnegat Inlet (Figure 12).

Figure 12: Water in the southern Barnegat

Bay-Little Egg Harbor area circulares

northward from the Little Egg Inlet and out the

Barnegat Inlet, allowing for a quick flushing

time and a consistent salinity.

16
 Also Long Beach Island is likely to have proper and well-maintained sewage

connections, which would provide for less runoff of bacteria. However, the Barnegat Light

location consistently had higher bacteria levels than all of the other locations. This is intriguing

because it is very close to the Barnegat Inlet, so one would assume it would have little bacteria

since it is being circulated with ocean water. These higher levels could be due to a compromise

in sewage connection near the sampling location, possibly a residual effect from Superstorm

Sandy. Another theory is that the bay beach that was sampled is not exposed to water circulation,

possibly due sandbars or other structures blocking the moving water from the channel. This

would cause the water to stay relatively still and warm, which are ideal conditions for bacterial

growth. Also, there may be excessive runoff of per waste or waterfowl in this location; however,

this may be a less likely scenario as it seems that this activity is not unusually different from

other sampling locations along LBI.

On July 24, 2017 both Beach Haven and Barnegat Light had ​Enterococcus l​ evels of

around 450 CFU/100mL when the swimming safety limit is 104 CFU/100mL. This abundance of

bacteria is likely due to the flooding of the island due to rain storms the previous night. Many

beaches along New Jersey were closed during the last week of sampling because of bacteria

contamination, including Barnegat light, which is in accordance with our results. ​Enterococcus

bacteria are known to cause urinary tract infections, as well as indicate the presence of ​E. coli

and other fecal coliforms.

Conclusion

17
 After our eight-week study, it was concluded that contrary to what was first

hypothesized, Coliscan is not statistically more accurate than ECA Check in detecting the

presence of ​E. coli,​ nor are Coliscan and ECA Check combined statistically more accurate than

Enterolert. With regards to the general water quality of the bay beaches along Long Beach

Island, ,with the exception of the week of July 24, 2017, bacteria levels remained well below the

Safety Swimming Limit for the majority of the duration of the study. The only site that may

warrant further study is Barnegat Light, which always tended to have higher values than the

other sites.

Acknowledgements

Thank you to Save Barnegat Bay for providing the opportunity to funding to conduct this

study, to our mentor, Dr. Wnek, for his guidance in our project, to the Marine Academy of

Technology and Environmental Science (MATES) for equipment and facilities, and to SUEZ for

bacteriological testing equipment.

18
 References

Barnegat Bay. (2016, July 8). Retrieved August 10th, 2017, from

http://www.nj.gov/dep/barnegatbay/

Boehm, A., Sassoubre​, ​L., (2014, February 5). Enterococci as Indicators of Environmental Fecal

Contamination. Retrieved August 10th, 2017, from

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK190421/

Coliscan Easygel. (n.d.). Retrieved May 23, 2017, from

https://www.micrologylabs.com/page/95/Instructions

Enterolert. (n.d.). Retrieved May 17, 2017, from IDEXX website:

https://www.idexx.com/water/products/enterolert.html

NJDEP Division of Science, Research and Technology. (2004, July). ​Hydrographic Study of

Barnegat Bay.​ Retrieved from ​http://www.state.nj.us/dep/dsr/research/hydrographic.pdf

NJDEP New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. (2017, Feb 3). Retrieved August

12th, 2017, from ​http://www.nj.gov/dep/hudson/

The USGS Water Science School (2016, Dec 2). Retrieved August 11th, 2017, from

https://water.usgs.gov/edu/turbidity.html

Barnegat Bay. (2016, July 8). Retrieved August 10th, 2017, from

19
 http://www.nj.gov/dep/barnegatbay/

Boehm, A., Sassoubre​, ​L., (2014, February 5). Enterococci as Indicators of Environmental Fecal

Contamination. Retrieved August 10th, 2017, from

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK190421/

20