Food Technology Institute, ITAL. Avenida Brasil, Jardim Chapadão, SP, Brazil.
Water Sci Technol. 2012;65(2):227-32. doi: 10.2166/wst.2012.758.
Four methods for enumerating Clostridium perfringens spores in water were evaluated: (1) the IMM (Iron Milk Medium) method (MPN); (2) the LS (Lactose Sulfite Broth) method (MPN); (3) the m-CP (membrane filtration Clostridium perfringens Agar) method (membrane filtration); and (4) the TSC (Tryptose Sulfite Cycloserine Agar) method (membrane filtration). The performance of these methods was compared with that of the DRCM (Differential Reinforced Clostridium Medium) method (MPN) as adopted by CETESB (Brazil's Environmental Sanitation Technology Company) for the analysis of C. perfringens spores in water. Statistical analysis was performed according to ISO 17994:2004 (Water Quality - Criteria for Establishing Equivalence between Microbiological Methods). The LS, m-CP, and TSC methods were considered not equivalent to the DRCM method, as they gave significantly lower results. The IMM showed inconclusive results and, according to ISO 17994:2004, analysis of a greater number of samples is needed to draw definitive conclusions comparing IMM and DRCM.
四种 enumerating 在水中的产气荚膜梭菌孢子的方法进行了评估：（1）IMM（铁牛奶培养基）法（MPN）；（2）LS（乳糖亚硫酸盐肉汤）法（MPN）；（3）m-CP（膜过滤产气荚膜梭菌琼脂）法（膜过滤）；和（4）TSC（色氨酸亚硫酸盐环丝氨酸琼脂）法（膜过滤）。这些方法的性能与 CETESB（巴西环境卫生技术公司）采用的 DRCM（差示强化梭状芽孢杆菌培养基）法（MPN）进行水中产气荚膜梭菌孢子分析进行了比较。根据 ISO 17994：2004（水质 - 微生物方法等效性建立标准）进行了统计分析。LS、m-CP 和 TSC 方法被认为与 DRCM 方法不等效，因为它们给出的结果明显较低。IMM 显示出不确定的结果，根据 ISO 17994：2004，需要分析更多的样本，以得出关于 IMM 和 DRCM 的明确结论。
