Clark D L, Milner B B, Stewart M H, Wolfe R L, Olson B H
Program in Social Ecology, University of California, Irvine 92717.
Appl Environ Microbiol. 1991 May;57(5):1528-34. doi: 10.1128/aem.57.5.1528-1534.1991.
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.
对两种市售4-甲基伞形酮基-β-D-葡萄糖醛酸制剂检测水样中大肠杆菌的性能进行了评估。从一个经处理的蓄水池采集了83份水样,从未经处理的地表水采集了32份水样。与标准方法膜过滤粪大肠菌群(MFC)法相比,两种市售制剂在检测处理过的水样中的大肠杆菌时存在统计学上的显著差异。然而,在从未经处理的地表水样品中检测大肠杆菌时,这两种方法与MFC试验之间没有差异。两种市售产品与MFC方法之间的不一致主要是由于两种市售产品出现了假阴性结果。数据表明,假阴性样本的出现可能归因于这两种检测大肠杆菌的试验底物特异性和敏感性受损。样本中假阴性结果的出现与异养平板计数之间没有明显关系。