AEM
Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
Correction for Edberg, Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 57 (11) 3403-3404.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Right arrow Copyright Information
Right arrow Books from ASM Press
Right arrow MicrobeWorld
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Clark, D L
Right arrow Articles by Olson, B H
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Clark, D L
Right arrow Articles by Olson, B H
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Clark, D L
Right arrow Articles by Olson, B H

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Appl Environ Microbiol. 1991 May; 57(5): 1528-1534

Comparative study of commercial 4-methylumbelliferyl-beta-D-glucuronide preparations with the Standard Methods membrane filtration fecal coliform test for the detection of Escherichia coli in water samples.

D L Clark, B B Milner, M H Stewart, R L Wolfe and B H Olson

Program in Social Ecology, University of California, Irvine 92717.

ABSTRACT

The performance capabilities of two commercial 4-methylumbelliferyl-beta-D-glucuronide preparations were evaluated for the detection of Escherichia coli from water samples. Eighty-three water samples were collected from a treated water reservoir, and 32 samples were collected from untreated surface water. There was a statistically significant difference between the two commercial preparations compared with the Standard Methods membrane filtration fecal coliform (MFC) method for the detection of E. coli from treated water samples. However, there was no difference between the two methods and the MFC test for E. coli detection from the untreated surface water samples. The disagreement between the two commercial products and the MFC method was primarily due to the occurrence of false-negative results with the two commercial products. The data indicate that the occurrence of false-negative samples could be attributed to impaired substrate specificity and sensitivity of the two tests for E. coli detection. There was no apparent relationship between the occurrence of false-negative results and heterotrophic plate counts in samples.


Appl Environ Microbiol. 1991 May; 57(5): 1528-1534




This article has been cited by other articles:




Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
J. Bacteriol. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. Eukaryot. Cell All ASM Journals

Copyright © 1991 by the American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.