Covert T C, Shadix L C, Rice E W, Haines J R, Freyberg R W
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Appl Environ Microbiol. 1989 Oct;55(10):2443-7. doi: 10.1128/aem.55.10.2443-2447.1989.
The Autoanalysis Colilert (AC) test was compared with the membrane filter (MF), 10-tube multiple-tube fermentation (MTF) technique, and the presence-absence test as described in Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater for the detection and enumeration of total coliforms in water. The methods were evaluated with 31 samples from seven different sources. Each sample was analyzed by each of the techniques, using replicate 100-ml sample volumes. A total of 582 confirmed tubes were positive by the MTF test, and 533 tubes were positive by the AC test. Statistical analysis of the most-probable-number comparability data showed a statistically significant difference in the number of positive tubes, with the MTF test resulting in more positive tubes. There were no statistically significant differences in precision between the two methods. All the methods were comparable in detection of total coliforms. Levels of heterotrophic bacteria generally encountered in drinking water did not interfere with detection or enumeration of coliforms by the AC test.
将自动分析大肠菌群快速检测（AC）试验与膜过滤（MF）法、10管多管发酵（MTF）技术以及《水和废水检验标准方法》中所述的有无试验进行比较，以检测和计数水中的总大肠菌群。使用来自七个不同来源的31个样品对这些方法进行评估。每个样品均采用每种技术进行分析，使用100毫升重复样品体积。MTF试验共有582支确证管呈阳性，AC试验有533支管呈阳性。对最可能数可比性数据的统计分析表明，阳性管数量存在统计学显著差异，MTF试验的阳性管更多。两种方法在精密度方面没有统计学显著差异。所有方法在检测总大肠菌群方面具有可比性。饮用水中通常遇到的异养细菌水平不会干扰AC试验对大肠菌群的检测或计数。
