scholarly journals Relation between Enterococcus concentrations and turbidity in fresh and saline recreational waters, coastal Horry County, South Carolina, 2003–04

2016 ◽  
pp. 1-21
Author(s):  
James E. Landmeyer ◽  
Thomas J. Garigen



2000 ◽  
Vol 66 (1) ◽  
pp. 109
Author(s):  
G. Wayne King ◽  
Catherine H. Lewis
Keyword(s):  


1950 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 254-258 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carl F. Miller

In 1946 and 1947 Dr. C.L. Glenn of Vanderbilt University gathered a collection of sherds from nine sites in the vicinity of Myrtle Beach, Horry County, South Carolina. These sherds were presented to the Smithsonian Institution. Some of the sherds were obtained to the north of Myrtle Beach, others in the immediate vicinity, and still others to the south of the city. The sites consist of small sandy ridges, 20 to 30 feet above mean sea level and overlooking Long Bay.Dr. Glenn reports that the sites contained ashes, sherds, and a few scattered oyster shells of the “racoon” type, which is the common type found in this vicinity. No bone, antler, or stone material was found in the debris deposit. He states that no local stones are present from which to fashion implements and that the very few which are found are crude and made from imported stones. In the entire collection, only two stone artifacts are included—one projectile point and one scraper.



2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. Andrew Wykel ◽  
◽  
William Richardson Doar
Keyword(s):  


2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna M. McKee ◽  
Paul M. Bradley ◽  
David Shelley ◽  
Shea McCarthy ◽  
Marirosa Molina

AbstractRecreational waters are primary attractions at many national and state parks where feral swine populations are established, and thus are possible hotspots for visitor exposure to feral swine contaminants. Microbial source tracking (MST) was used to determine spatial and temporal patterns of fecal contamination in Congaree National Park (CONG) in South Carolina, U.S.A., which has an established population of feral swine and is a popular destination for water-based recreation. Water samples were collected between December 2017 and June 2019 from 18 surface water sites distributed throughout CONG. Host specific MST markers included human (HF183), swine (Pig2Bac), ruminant (Rum2Bac), cow (CowM3), chicken (CL), and a marker for shiga toxin producing Escherichia coli (STEC; stx2). Water samples were also screened for culturable Escherichia coli (E. coli) as part of a citizen science program. Neither the cow nor chicken MST markers were detected during the study. The human marker was predominantly detected at boundary sites or could be attributed to upstream sources. However, several detections within CONG without concurrent detections at upstream external sites suggested occasional internal contamination from humans. The swine marker was the most frequently detected of all MST markers, and was present at sites located both internal and external to the Park. Swine MST marker concentrations ≥ 43 gene copies/mL were associated with culturable E. coli concentrations greater than the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency beach action value for recreational waters. None of the MST markers showed a strong association with detection of the pathogenic marker (stx2). Limited information about the health risk from exposure to fecal contamination from non-human sources hampers interpretation of the human health implications.



Author(s):  
J. T. Ellzey ◽  
D. Borunda ◽  
B. P. Stewart

Genetically alcohol deficient deer mice (ADHN/ADHN) (obtained from the Peromyscus Genetic Stock Center, Univ. of South Carolina) lack hepatic cytosolic alcohol dehydrogenase. In order to determine if these deer mice would provide a model system for an ultrastructural study of the effects of ethanol on hepatocyte organelles, 75 micrographs of ADH+ adult male deer mice (n=5) were compared with 75 micrographs of ADH− adult male deer mice (n=5). A morphometric analysis of mitochondrial and peroxisomal parameters was undertaken.The livers were perfused with 0.1M HEPES buffer followed by 0.25% glutaraldehyde and 2% sucrose in 0.1M HEPES buffer (4C), removed, weighed and fixed by immersion in 2.5% glutaraldehyde in 0.1M HEPES buffer, pH 7.4, followed by a 3,3’ diaminobenzidine (DAB) incubation, postfixation with 2% OsO4, en bloc staining with 1% uranyl acetate in 0.025M maleate-NaOH buffer, dehydrated, embedded in Poly/Bed 812-BDMA epon resin, sectioned and poststained with uranyl acetate and lead citrate. Photographs were taken on a Zeiss EM-10 transmission electron microscope, scanned with a Howtek personal color scanner, analyzed with OPTIMAS 4.02 software on a Gateway2000 4DX2-66V personal computer and stored in Excel 4.0.





2009 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 13-16
Author(s):  
Christopher R. Brigham ◽  
Jenny Walker

Abstract The AMAGuides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides) is the most widely used basis for determining impairment and is used in state workers’ compensation systems, federal systems, automobile casualty, and personal injury, as well as by the majority of state workers’ compensation jurisdictions. Two tables summarize the edition of the AMA Guides used and provide information by state. The fifth edition (2000) is the most commonly used edition: California, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Kentucky, New Hampshire, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Vermont, and Washington. Eleven states use the sixth edition (2007): Alaska, Arizona, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Wyoming. Eight states still commonly make use of the fourth edition (1993): Alabama, Arkansas, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, South Dakota, Texas, and West Virginia. Two states use the Third Edition, Revised (1990): Colorado and Oregon. Connecticut does not stipulate which edition of the AMA Guides to use. Six states use their own state specific guidelines (Florida, Illinois, Minnesota, New York, North Carolina, and Wisconsin), and six states do not specify a specific guideline (Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, South Carolina, and Virginia). Statutes may or may not specify which edition of the AMA Guides to use. Some states use their own guidelines for specific problems and use the Guides for other issues.



Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document