AEM
Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
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 Olson, B H
Right arrow Articles by Wolfe, R L
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Olson, B H
Right arrow Articles by Wolfe, R L
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Olson, B H
Right arrow Articles by Wolfe, R L

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Appl Environ Microbiol. 1991 May; 57(5): 1535-1539

Total coliform detection in drinking water: comparison of membrane filtration with Colilert and Coliquik.

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

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

ABSTRACT

The Colilert (CL) and Coliquik (CQ) systems were compared in a presence-absence format against the Standard Methods membrane filtration (MF) technique to determine whether differences existed in total coliform detection. Approximately 750 water samples were collected from distribution systems, covered and uncovered storage reservoirs, well sites, and the influent to drinking water treatment plants. Samples were analyzed for total coliforms and heterotrophic bacteria with MF, CL, and CQ. The agreements between CL and MF and between CQ and MF were both greater than 94.8%, which indicates that both may be acceptable methods for total coliform detection. Disagreement between the CL and CQ methods was primarily due to false-negative results. Furthermore, laboratory and field inoculation methods were compared for CL, more than 98% agreement was obtained. This finding indicates that sampling and immediate field inoculation may be an alternative to the traditional laboratory inoculation.


Appl Environ Microbiol. 1991 May; 57(5): 1535-1539




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.