Comparison of four β-glucuronidase and β-galactosidase-based commercial culture methods used to detect Escherichia coli and total coliforms in water

The MI agar, Colilert(®), Chromocult coliform(®) agar, and DC with BCIG agar chromogenic culture-based methods used to assess microbiological quality of drinking water were compared in terms of their ubiquity, sensitivity, ease of use, growth of atypical colonies and affordability. For ubiquity, 129...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of water and health 2015-06, Vol.13 (2), p.340-352
Hauptverfasser: Maheux, Andrée F, Dion-Dupont, Vanessa, Bouchard, Sébastien, Bisson, Marc-Antoine, Bergeron, Michel G, Rodriguez, Manuel J
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 352
container_issue 2
container_start_page 340
container_title Journal of water and health
container_volume 13
creator Maheux, Andrée F
Dion-Dupont, Vanessa
Bouchard, Sébastien
Bisson, Marc-Antoine
Bergeron, Michel G
Rodriguez, Manuel J
description The MI agar, Colilert(®), Chromocult coliform(®) agar, and DC with BCIG agar chromogenic culture-based methods used to assess microbiological quality of drinking water were compared in terms of their ubiquity, sensitivity, ease of use, growth of atypical colonies and affordability. For ubiquity, 129 total coliform (representing 76 species) and 19 Escherichia coli strains were tested. Then, 635 1-L well water samples were divided into 100 mL subsamples for testing by all four methods. Test results showed that 70.5, 52.7, 36.4, and 23.3% of the non-E. coli total coliform strains and 94.7, 94.7, 89.5, and 89.5% of the 19 E. coli strains yielded a positive signal with the four methods, respectively. They also yielded a total coliform positive signal for 66.5, 51.7, 64.9, and 55.0% and an E. coli positive signal for 16.1, 14.8, 17.3, and 13.4% of the 635 well water samples tested, respectively. Results showed that Colilert(®) is the most expensive method tested in terms of reactants, yet it is the easiest to use. Large numbers of atypical colonies were also often observed on Chromocult coliform(®) and DC with BCIG, thereby challenging the target microorganism count. Thus, the MI agar method seems to be the best option for the assessment of drinking water quality.
doi_str_mv 10.2166/wh.2014.175
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1701478620</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1686998666</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c317t-de0d53b83f5fe1121ceca66cb738edd560f8ca5804786aaa0eec01b3eb88e5873</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkbtuFDEUhi1EREKgokeWaCKhWXxZ30q0ChcpEk2oRx77DONoZrz4ohUvwoPwIHkmvJtAQUNj-xx__y_7_Ai9omTDqJTvDtOGEbrdUCWeoAtqjOyUZuZpO2-V6rRh5Bw9z_mOECaZYM_QOZNky4xUF-jnLi57m0KOK44jHmNN-P5X922urqa4Bm8zYLv6U9PO1pWYT81uaIvHLi4LJBfsjF2dS02AFyhT9BnX432J2EMBV_B1dhOk4KZgm2oOJ9cSy1HZyjGmJeOw4oMtkF6gs9HOGV4-7pfo64fr292n7ubLx8-79zed41SVzgPxgg-aj2IEShl14KyUblBcg_dCklE7KzTZKi2ttQTAETpwGLQGoRW_RFcPvvsUv1fIpV9CdjDPdoVYc09Vm2zTMvJ_VGppjJZSNvTNP-hdm-vaPtJTw4mRVBjeqLcPlEsx5wRjv09hselHT0l_TLY_TP0x2fYK0ejXj551WMD_Zf9EyX8DwbuilQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1930961593</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of four β-glucuronidase and β-galactosidase-based commercial culture methods used to detect Escherichia coli and total coliforms in water</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><creator>Maheux, Andrée F ; Dion-Dupont, Vanessa ; Bouchard, Sébastien ; Bisson, Marc-Antoine ; Bergeron, Michel G ; Rodriguez, Manuel J</creator><creatorcontrib>Maheux, Andrée F ; Dion-Dupont, Vanessa ; Bouchard, Sébastien ; Bisson, Marc-Antoine ; Bergeron, Michel G ; Rodriguez, Manuel J</creatorcontrib><description>The MI agar, Colilert(®), Chromocult coliform(®) agar, and DC with BCIG agar chromogenic culture-based methods used to assess microbiological quality of drinking water were compared in terms of their ubiquity, sensitivity, ease of use, growth of atypical colonies and affordability. For ubiquity, 129 total coliform (representing 76 species) and 19 Escherichia coli strains were tested. Then, 635 1-L well water samples were divided into 100 mL subsamples for testing by all four methods. Test results showed that 70.5, 52.7, 36.4, and 23.3% of the non-E. coli total coliform strains and 94.7, 94.7, 89.5, and 89.5% of the 19 E. coli strains yielded a positive signal with the four methods, respectively. They also yielded a total coliform positive signal for 66.5, 51.7, 64.9, and 55.0% and an E. coli positive signal for 16.1, 14.8, 17.3, and 13.4% of the 635 well water samples tested, respectively. Results showed that Colilert(®) is the most expensive method tested in terms of reactants, yet it is the easiest to use. Large numbers of atypical colonies were also often observed on Chromocult coliform(®) and DC with BCIG, thereby challenging the target microorganism count. Thus, the MI agar method seems to be the best option for the assessment of drinking water quality.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1477-8920</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1996-7829</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.2166/wh.2014.175</identifier><identifier>PMID: 26042967</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: IWA Publishing</publisher><subject>Agar ; Bacteria ; Bacteriological Techniques - methods ; beta-Galactosidase - metabolism ; Coliforms ; Colonies ; Drinking water ; E coli ; Enterobacteriaceae - enzymology ; Enterobacteriaceae - isolation &amp; purification ; Environmental Monitoring - methods ; Enzymes ; Escherichia coli ; Galactosidase ; Glucuronidase - metabolism ; Laboratories ; Methods ; Quality assessment ; Species Specificity ; Strains (organisms) ; Test procedures ; Water analysis ; Water Microbiology - standards ; Water quality ; Water sampling ; Well water</subject><ispartof>Journal of water and health, 2015-06, Vol.13 (2), p.340-352</ispartof><rights>Copyright IWA Publishing Jun 2015</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c317t-de0d53b83f5fe1121ceca66cb738edd560f8ca5804786aaa0eec01b3eb88e5873</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c317t-de0d53b83f5fe1121ceca66cb738edd560f8ca5804786aaa0eec01b3eb88e5873</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26042967$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Maheux, Andrée F</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dion-Dupont, Vanessa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bouchard, Sébastien</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bisson, Marc-Antoine</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bergeron, Michel G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rodriguez, Manuel J</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of four β-glucuronidase and β-galactosidase-based commercial culture methods used to detect Escherichia coli and total coliforms in water</title><title>Journal of water and health</title><addtitle>J Water Health</addtitle><description>The MI agar, Colilert(®), Chromocult coliform(®) agar, and DC with BCIG agar chromogenic culture-based methods used to assess microbiological quality of drinking water were compared in terms of their ubiquity, sensitivity, ease of use, growth of atypical colonies and affordability. For ubiquity, 129 total coliform (representing 76 species) and 19 Escherichia coli strains were tested. Then, 635 1-L well water samples were divided into 100 mL subsamples for testing by all four methods. Test results showed that 70.5, 52.7, 36.4, and 23.3% of the non-E. coli total coliform strains and 94.7, 94.7, 89.5, and 89.5% of the 19 E. coli strains yielded a positive signal with the four methods, respectively. They also yielded a total coliform positive signal for 66.5, 51.7, 64.9, and 55.0% and an E. coli positive signal for 16.1, 14.8, 17.3, and 13.4% of the 635 well water samples tested, respectively. Results showed that Colilert(®) is the most expensive method tested in terms of reactants, yet it is the easiest to use. Large numbers of atypical colonies were also often observed on Chromocult coliform(®) and DC with BCIG, thereby challenging the target microorganism count. Thus, the MI agar method seems to be the best option for the assessment of drinking water quality.</description><subject>Agar</subject><subject>Bacteria</subject><subject>Bacteriological Techniques - methods</subject><subject>beta-Galactosidase - metabolism</subject><subject>Coliforms</subject><subject>Colonies</subject><subject>Drinking water</subject><subject>E coli</subject><subject>Enterobacteriaceae - enzymology</subject><subject>Enterobacteriaceae - isolation &amp; purification</subject><subject>Environmental Monitoring - methods</subject><subject>Enzymes</subject><subject>Escherichia coli</subject><subject>Galactosidase</subject><subject>Glucuronidase - metabolism</subject><subject>Laboratories</subject><subject>Methods</subject><subject>Quality assessment</subject><subject>Species Specificity</subject><subject>Strains (organisms)</subject><subject>Test procedures</subject><subject>Water analysis</subject><subject>Water Microbiology - standards</subject><subject>Water quality</subject><subject>Water sampling</subject><subject>Well water</subject><issn>1477-8920</issn><issn>1996-7829</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkbtuFDEUhi1EREKgokeWaCKhWXxZ30q0ChcpEk2oRx77DONoZrz4ohUvwoPwIHkmvJtAQUNj-xx__y_7_Ai9omTDqJTvDtOGEbrdUCWeoAtqjOyUZuZpO2-V6rRh5Bw9z_mOECaZYM_QOZNky4xUF-jnLi57m0KOK44jHmNN-P5X922urqa4Bm8zYLv6U9PO1pWYT81uaIvHLi4LJBfsjF2dS02AFyhT9BnX432J2EMBV_B1dhOk4KZgm2oOJ9cSy1HZyjGmJeOw4oMtkF6gs9HOGV4-7pfo64fr292n7ubLx8-79zed41SVzgPxgg-aj2IEShl14KyUblBcg_dCklE7KzTZKi2ttQTAETpwGLQGoRW_RFcPvvsUv1fIpV9CdjDPdoVYc09Vm2zTMvJ_VGppjJZSNvTNP-hdm-vaPtJTw4mRVBjeqLcPlEsx5wRjv09hselHT0l_TLY_TP0x2fYK0ejXj551WMD_Zf9EyX8DwbuilQ</recordid><startdate>201506</startdate><enddate>201506</enddate><creator>Maheux, Andrée F</creator><creator>Dion-Dupont, Vanessa</creator><creator>Bouchard, Sébastien</creator><creator>Bisson, Marc-Antoine</creator><creator>Bergeron, Michel G</creator><creator>Rodriguez, Manuel J</creator><general>IWA Publishing</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QH</scope><scope>7UA</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>BKSAR</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H97</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>L.G</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PCBAR</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7T2</scope><scope>7U2</scope><scope>SOI</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201506</creationdate><title>Comparison of four β-glucuronidase and β-galactosidase-based commercial culture methods used to detect Escherichia coli and total coliforms in water</title><author>Maheux, Andrée F ; Dion-Dupont, Vanessa ; Bouchard, Sébastien ; Bisson, Marc-Antoine ; Bergeron, Michel G ; Rodriguez, Manuel J</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c317t-de0d53b83f5fe1121ceca66cb738edd560f8ca5804786aaa0eec01b3eb88e5873</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>Agar</topic><topic>Bacteria</topic><topic>Bacteriological Techniques - methods</topic><topic>beta-Galactosidase - metabolism</topic><topic>Coliforms</topic><topic>Colonies</topic><topic>Drinking water</topic><topic>E coli</topic><topic>Enterobacteriaceae - enzymology</topic><topic>Enterobacteriaceae - isolation &amp; purification</topic><topic>Environmental Monitoring - methods</topic><topic>Enzymes</topic><topic>Escherichia coli</topic><topic>Galactosidase</topic><topic>Glucuronidase - metabolism</topic><topic>Laboratories</topic><topic>Methods</topic><topic>Quality assessment</topic><topic>Species Specificity</topic><topic>Strains (organisms)</topic><topic>Test procedures</topic><topic>Water analysis</topic><topic>Water Microbiology - standards</topic><topic>Water quality</topic><topic>Water sampling</topic><topic>Well water</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Maheux, Andrée F</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dion-Dupont, Vanessa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bouchard, Sébastien</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bisson, Marc-Antoine</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bergeron, Michel G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rodriguez, Manuel J</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Aqualine</collection><collection>Water Resources Abstracts</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Agricultural &amp; Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric &amp; Aquatic Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 3: Aquatic Pollution &amp; Environmental Quality</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric &amp; Aquatic Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Health and Safety Science Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Safety Science and Risk</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Journal of water and health</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Maheux, Andrée F</au><au>Dion-Dupont, Vanessa</au><au>Bouchard, Sébastien</au><au>Bisson, Marc-Antoine</au><au>Bergeron, Michel G</au><au>Rodriguez, Manuel J</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of four β-glucuronidase and β-galactosidase-based commercial culture methods used to detect Escherichia coli and total coliforms in water</atitle><jtitle>Journal of water and health</jtitle><addtitle>J Water Health</addtitle><date>2015-06</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>13</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>340</spage><epage>352</epage><pages>340-352</pages><issn>1477-8920</issn><eissn>1996-7829</eissn><abstract>The MI agar, Colilert(®), Chromocult coliform(®) agar, and DC with BCIG agar chromogenic culture-based methods used to assess microbiological quality of drinking water were compared in terms of their ubiquity, sensitivity, ease of use, growth of atypical colonies and affordability. For ubiquity, 129 total coliform (representing 76 species) and 19 Escherichia coli strains were tested. Then, 635 1-L well water samples were divided into 100 mL subsamples for testing by all four methods. Test results showed that 70.5, 52.7, 36.4, and 23.3% of the non-E. coli total coliform strains and 94.7, 94.7, 89.5, and 89.5% of the 19 E. coli strains yielded a positive signal with the four methods, respectively. They also yielded a total coliform positive signal for 66.5, 51.7, 64.9, and 55.0% and an E. coli positive signal for 16.1, 14.8, 17.3, and 13.4% of the 635 well water samples tested, respectively. Results showed that Colilert(®) is the most expensive method tested in terms of reactants, yet it is the easiest to use. Large numbers of atypical colonies were also often observed on Chromocult coliform(®) and DC with BCIG, thereby challenging the target microorganism count. Thus, the MI agar method seems to be the best option for the assessment of drinking water quality.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>IWA Publishing</pub><pmid>26042967</pmid><doi>10.2166/wh.2014.175</doi><tpages>13</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1477-8920
ispartof Journal of water and health, 2015-06, Vol.13 (2), p.340-352
issn 1477-8920
1996-7829
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1701478620
source MEDLINE; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals
subjects Agar
Bacteria
Bacteriological Techniques - methods
beta-Galactosidase - metabolism
Coliforms
Colonies
Drinking water
E coli
Enterobacteriaceae - enzymology
Enterobacteriaceae - isolation & purification
Environmental Monitoring - methods
Enzymes
Escherichia coli
Galactosidase
Glucuronidase - metabolism
Laboratories
Methods
Quality assessment
Species Specificity
Strains (organisms)
Test procedures
Water analysis
Water Microbiology - standards
Water quality
Water sampling
Well water
title Comparison of four β-glucuronidase and β-galactosidase-based commercial culture methods used to detect Escherichia coli and total coliforms in water
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-02T08%3A50%3A06IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20four%20%CE%B2-glucuronidase%20and%20%CE%B2-galactosidase-based%20commercial%20culture%20methods%20used%20to%20detect%20Escherichia%20coli%20and%20total%20coliforms%20in%20water&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20water%20and%20health&rft.au=Maheux,%20Andr%C3%A9e%20F&rft.date=2015-06&rft.volume=13&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=340&rft.epage=352&rft.pages=340-352&rft.issn=1477-8920&rft.eissn=1996-7829&rft_id=info:doi/10.2166/wh.2014.175&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1686998666%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1930961593&rft_id=info:pmid/26042967&rfr_iscdi=true