Suppr超能文献

[水中肠球菌计数的膜过滤法比较评估]

[Comparative evaluation of membrane filter methods for enumeration of enterococci in water].

作者信息

Koujima I

机构信息

Shujitsu Junior College.

出版信息

Nihon Koshu Eisei Zasshi. 1992 Apr;39(4):223-7.

PMID:1611124
Abstract

Many laboratory methods for the assay of viable counts of enterococci in water have been reported, but the evaluation or verification of the methods have yet to be reported. The three most commonly used membrane filter methods were selected and compared in terms of the verification of enterococci counts in environmental water. The verified percentages, i.e. identified enterococci count versus apparent enterococci count, assayed by each method, were as follows: KF.MF (membrane filter cultured on KF agar) method 64.5%; mENT.MF (membrane filter cultured on mENT agar) method 80.7%; and mE.MF (membrane filter cultured on mE agar) method 63.4%. The AC.MF (membrane filter cultured on AC agar) method which we reported previously (Koujima I, et al. Jap J Bact, 1989; 44: 813-816) consistently gives 100% verification and therefore is the most consistent method and superior in accuracy to the other three methods.

摘要

已有许多关于水中肠球菌活菌计数测定的实验室方法的报道,但这些方法的评估或验证尚未见报道。选取了三种最常用的膜过滤法,并就环境水中肠球菌计数的验证情况进行了比较。每种方法测定的验证百分比,即鉴定出的肠球菌计数与表观肠球菌计数之比,如下所示:KF.MF(在KF琼脂上培养的膜过滤法)为64.5%;mENT.MF(在mENT琼脂上培养的膜过滤法)为80.7%;mE.MF(在mE琼脂上培养的膜过滤法)为63.4%。我们之前报道过的AC.MF(在AC琼脂上培养的膜过滤法)(Koujima I等人,《日本细菌学杂志》,1989年;44:813 - 816)始终给出100%的验证结果,因此是最一致的方法,在准确性上优于其他三种方法。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验