2003
DOI: 10.1023/a:1023642113645
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Untitled

Abstract: Simple microbial test comprising H2S paper strip test, presence-absence (PA) test, and fluorogenic brila broth (BB) test performed directly at 44.5 degrees C were evaluated and compared with the standard most probable number (MPN) method for detection of fecal coliforms in 173 drinking water sources. BB and PA test were comparable with standard MPN method, whereas, poor compliance was noted for H2S test. PA test when compared with standard MPN test only 15% disagreement was detected, whereas, highest disagreem… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2006
2006
2014
2014

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

1
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 13 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Results indicated a screening test that is more specific than it is sensitive which performs better at fecal coliform concentrations much higher than those recommended for drinking water. As suggested previously, the false negatives (47/358) could reflect the lack of adequate sensitivity at concentrations of fecal coliforms less than 10 CFU per 100 ml, or could be due to the presence of TTC that are not associated with sulfate-reducing bacteria (Tewari et al 2003; Vasudevan and Tandon 2008; Wright et al 2012). Likewise, false positive results (15/358) could have been due to environmental hydrogen sulfide producing bacteria that are not associated with TTC, which can be also present in tropical groundwater (Kaspar et al 1992; Pant et al 2002; Janda and Abbott 2006; Wright et al 2012).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 93%
“…Results indicated a screening test that is more specific than it is sensitive which performs better at fecal coliform concentrations much higher than those recommended for drinking water. As suggested previously, the false negatives (47/358) could reflect the lack of adequate sensitivity at concentrations of fecal coliforms less than 10 CFU per 100 ml, or could be due to the presence of TTC that are not associated with sulfate-reducing bacteria (Tewari et al 2003; Vasudevan and Tandon 2008; Wright et al 2012). Likewise, false positive results (15/358) could have been due to environmental hydrogen sulfide producing bacteria that are not associated with TTC, which can be also present in tropical groundwater (Kaspar et al 1992; Pant et al 2002; Janda and Abbott 2006; Wright et al 2012).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 93%