Havemeister G, Aleksic S, Bockemühl J, Heinemeyer E A, Müller H E, Von Pritzbuer E
Abteilung für Hygiene, Universität, Kiel.
Zentralbl Hyg Umweltmed. 1991 May;191(5-6):523-38.
During the summer season of 1989 about 222 samples of bathing water (Northsea, Baltic Sea and inland waters) were investigated, i.e. 2 times 1998 dilution tubes (1501 positive) were tested. Results with BRILA-MUG and lactose-bouillon were compared and additional 97 samples were tested with one respectively three colonies by confirmative tests. -- The BRILA-MUG one-tube-test (gas, fluorescence and indol) has as expected larger numbers of total coliforms (GC) and faecal coliforms (FC) in comparison with corresponding numbers for E. coli and coliform bacteria according to German law for drinking water (TrinkwV). -- BRILA-MUG and lactose-bouillon with the same identification mode according to "TrinkwV" has corresponding results concerning E. coli and coliform bacteria. -- Following the identification mode according to "TrinkwV" the total coliforms (GC/gas in BRILA-MUG) depending on the origin proved 60-80% as coliform bacteria. Additional API-tests showed that the other bacteria are coliform bacteria too or bacteria which can be considered as indicators for water pollution. -- Faecal coliforms (FC/fluorescence and indol-positive) depending on the origin proved 70-90% as E. coli, if following the identification mode according to "TrinkwV". Using 3 instead of 1 colony per positive dilution tube for identification the positive results increased approximately by 9%. 15% of negative results with the identification mode according to "TrinkwV" proved as E. coli-positive with identification according to API-system, i.e. the corresponding rate of E. coli-positive tubes will therefore be higher than shown above. The BRILA-MUG one-tube-test in connection with the MPN-method can be used successfully to determine the number of total and faecal coliforms according to the EEC-directive for bathing waters. The test needs only a minimum of material and also a minimum of laboratory staff. Differences between this test and other more extensive tests with several biochemical identification steps are negligible. The work load for bathing water tests would not be justified in this case.
1989年夏季，对约222份沐浴水样本（北海、波罗的海及内陆水域）进行了调查，即检测了2倍的1998稀释管（1501份呈阳性）。比较了BRILA - MUG和乳糖肉汤的检测结果，并通过确证试验对另外97份样本分别以一个或三个菌落进行了检测。——与德国饮用水法规（TrinkwV）中大肠杆菌和大肠菌群的相应数量相比，BRILA - MUG单管检测法（产气、荧光和吲哚）检测出的总大肠菌群（GC）和粪大肠菌群（FC）数量更多，正如预期那样。——根据“TrinkwV”采用相同鉴定方式的BRILA - MUG和乳糖肉汤，在大肠杆菌和大肠菌群方面有相应的结果。——按照“TrinkwV”的鉴定方式，取决于水源的总大肠菌群（BRILA - MUG中的GC/产气）经证实有60% - 80%为大肠菌群。额外的API检测表明，其他细菌也是大肠菌群，或者是可被视为水污染指标的细菌。——按照“TrinkwV”的鉴定方式，取决于水源的粪大肠菌群（FC/荧光和吲哚阳性）经证实有70% - 90%为大肠杆菌。若每个阳性稀释管用3个而非1个菌落进行鉴定，阳性结果大约增加9%。按照“TrinkwV”鉴定方式的15%阴性结果，经API系统鉴定被证明为大肠杆菌阳性，即相应的大肠杆菌阳性管的比例因此会高于上述显示的比例。BRILA - MUG单管检测法与MPN法相结合，可成功用于根据欧盟沐浴水指令确定总大肠菌群和粪大肠菌群的数量。该检测仅需最少的材料，也只需最少的实验室工作人员。此检测与其他需要多个生化鉴定步骤的更复杂检测之间的差异可忽略不计。在这种情况下，进行沐浴水检测的工作量是不合理的。
