Comparison and verification of bacterial water quality indicator measurement methods using ambient coastal water samples

More than 30 laboratories routinely monitor water along southern California's beaches for bacterial indicators of fecal contamination. Data from these efforts frequently are combined and compared even though three different methods (membrane filtration (MF), multiple tube fermentation (MTF), an...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Environmental monitoring and assessment 2006-05, Vol.116 (1-3), p.335-344
Hauptverfasser: GRIFFITH, John F, AUMAND, Larissa A, LEE, Ioannice M, MCGEE, Charles D, OTHMAN, Laila L, RIITER, Kerry J, WALKER, Kathy O, WEISBERG, Stephen B
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 344
container_issue 1-3
container_start_page 335
container_title Environmental monitoring and assessment
container_volume 116
creator GRIFFITH, John F
AUMAND, Larissa A
LEE, Ioannice M
MCGEE, Charles D
OTHMAN, Laila L
RIITER, Kerry J
WALKER, Kathy O
WEISBERG, Stephen B
description More than 30 laboratories routinely monitor water along southern California's beaches for bacterial indicators of fecal contamination. Data from these efforts frequently are combined and compared even though three different methods (membrane filtration (MF), multiple tube fermentation (MTF), and chromogenic substrate (CS) methods) are used. To assess data comparability and quantify variability within method and across laboratories, 26 laboratories participated in an intercalibration exercise. Each laboratory processed three replicates from eight ambient water samples employing the method or methods they routinely use for water quality monitoring. Verification analyses also were conducted on a subset of wells from the CS analysis to confirm or exclude the presence of the target organism. Enterococci results were generally comparable across methods. Confirmation revealed a 9% false positive rate and a 4% false negative rate in the CS method for enterococci, though these errors were small in the context of within- and among-laboratory variability. Fecal coliforms also were comparable across all methods, though CS underestimated the other methods by about 10%, probably because it measures only E. coli, rather than the larger fecal coliform group measured by MF and MTF. CS overestimated total coliforms relative to the other methods by several fold and was found to have a 40% false positive rate in verification. Across-laboratory variability was small relative to within- and among-method variability, but only after data entry errors were corrected. One fifth of the laboratories committed data entry errors that were much larger than any method-related errors. These errors are particularly significant because these data were submitted in a test situation where laboratories were aware they would be under increased scrutiny. Under normal circumstances, it is unlikely that these errors would have been detected and managers would have been obliged to issue beach water quality warnings.
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s10661-006-7571-z
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_759319029</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>68082141</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c452t-209bf3a1ea6b5d57db5416c5e70511f98a58ddd87f9e5be3973972b1209f64dc3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFks1rFTEUxYMo9ln9A9zIIKjdjN6bmSSTpTz8KBTc6Hq4kw9NmZm8JjNq-9c3j_ew4KKFQC6H3znchMPYS4T3CKA-ZAQpsQaQtRIK65tHbINCNTXXQj9mG0CpatlIfcKe5XwJAFq1-ik7KbrSEmDD_m7jtKMUcpwrmm3126Xgg6ElFCH6aiCzFInG6g-VobpaaQzLdRVmu6diqiZHeU1ucvNS5uVXtLlac5h_VjQNYa-aSHn5l5Bp2o0uP2dPPI3ZvTjep-zH50_ft1_ri29fzrcfL2rTCr7UHPTgG0JHchBWKDuIFqURToFA9Loj0VlrO-W1E4NrtCqHD1h8XrbWNKfs3SF3l-LV6vLSTyEbN440u7jmXgndoAauC_n2XlJ20HFs8UGQQ9dq0XUFPLsXRKUUguAoCvr6P_QyrmkuP1M2xEbzrlUFwgNkUsw5Od_vUpgoXfcI_b4R_aERfWlEv29Ef1M8r47B6zA5e-c4VqAAb44AZUOjTzSbkO84pbXS5TG3uxa_uA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>751392847</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison and verification of bacterial water quality indicator measurement methods using ambient coastal water samples</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>SpringerLink (Online service)</source><creator>GRIFFITH, John F ; AUMAND, Larissa A ; LEE, Ioannice M ; MCGEE, Charles D ; OTHMAN, Laila L ; RIITER, Kerry J ; WALKER, Kathy O ; WEISBERG, Stephen B</creator><creatorcontrib>GRIFFITH, John F ; AUMAND, Larissa A ; LEE, Ioannice M ; MCGEE, Charles D ; OTHMAN, Laila L ; RIITER, Kerry J ; WALKER, Kathy O ; WEISBERG, Stephen B</creatorcontrib><description>More than 30 laboratories routinely monitor water along southern California's beaches for bacterial indicators of fecal contamination. Data from these efforts frequently are combined and compared even though three different methods (membrane filtration (MF), multiple tube fermentation (MTF), and chromogenic substrate (CS) methods) are used. To assess data comparability and quantify variability within method and across laboratories, 26 laboratories participated in an intercalibration exercise. Each laboratory processed three replicates from eight ambient water samples employing the method or methods they routinely use for water quality monitoring. Verification analyses also were conducted on a subset of wells from the CS analysis to confirm or exclude the presence of the target organism. Enterococci results were generally comparable across methods. Confirmation revealed a 9% false positive rate and a 4% false negative rate in the CS method for enterococci, though these errors were small in the context of within- and among-laboratory variability. Fecal coliforms also were comparable across all methods, though CS underestimated the other methods by about 10%, probably because it measures only E. coli, rather than the larger fecal coliform group measured by MF and MTF. CS overestimated total coliforms relative to the other methods by several fold and was found to have a 40% false positive rate in verification. Across-laboratory variability was small relative to within- and among-method variability, but only after data entry errors were corrected. One fifth of the laboratories committed data entry errors that were much larger than any method-related errors. These errors are particularly significant because these data were submitted in a test situation where laboratories were aware they would be under increased scrutiny. Under normal circumstances, it is unlikely that these errors would have been detected and managers would have been obliged to issue beach water quality warnings.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0167-6369</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1573-2959</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s10661-006-7571-z</identifier><identifier>PMID: 16779600</identifier><identifier>CODEN: EMASDH</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Dordrect: Springer</publisher><subject>Analysis methods ; Applied sciences ; Assessments ; Bacteria ; Beaches ; California ; Coastal waters ; Colony Count, Microbial ; Confidence Intervals ; E coli ; Earth sciences ; Earth, ocean, space ; Engineering and environment geology. Geothermics ; Enterobacteriaceae - isolation &amp; purification ; Environmental monitoring ; Errors ; Escherichia coli ; Exact sciences and technology ; Fecal coliforms ; Feces ; Feces - microbiology ; Fermentation ; Indicators ; Laboratories ; Marine ; Measurement methods ; Membrane filtration ; Methods ; Microbiology ; Monitors ; Natural water pollution ; Pollution ; Pollution, environment geology ; Seawater - microbiology ; Seawaters, estuaries ; Water analysis ; Water Microbiology - standards ; Water monitoring ; Water quality ; Water quality management ; Water quality measurements ; Water sampling ; Water treatment and pollution</subject><ispartof>Environmental monitoring and assessment, 2006-05, Vol.116 (1-3), p.335-344</ispartof><rights>2006 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2006</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c452t-209bf3a1ea6b5d57db5416c5e70511f98a58ddd87f9e5be3973972b1209f64dc3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c452t-209bf3a1ea6b5d57db5416c5e70511f98a58ddd87f9e5be3973972b1209f64dc3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=17997988$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16779600$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>GRIFFITH, John F</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>AUMAND, Larissa A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>LEE, Ioannice M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>MCGEE, Charles D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>OTHMAN, Laila L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>RIITER, Kerry J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>WALKER, Kathy O</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>WEISBERG, Stephen B</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison and verification of bacterial water quality indicator measurement methods using ambient coastal water samples</title><title>Environmental monitoring and assessment</title><addtitle>Environ Monit Assess</addtitle><description>More than 30 laboratories routinely monitor water along southern California's beaches for bacterial indicators of fecal contamination. Data from these efforts frequently are combined and compared even though three different methods (membrane filtration (MF), multiple tube fermentation (MTF), and chromogenic substrate (CS) methods) are used. To assess data comparability and quantify variability within method and across laboratories, 26 laboratories participated in an intercalibration exercise. Each laboratory processed three replicates from eight ambient water samples employing the method or methods they routinely use for water quality monitoring. Verification analyses also were conducted on a subset of wells from the CS analysis to confirm or exclude the presence of the target organism. Enterococci results were generally comparable across methods. Confirmation revealed a 9% false positive rate and a 4% false negative rate in the CS method for enterococci, though these errors were small in the context of within- and among-laboratory variability. Fecal coliforms also were comparable across all methods, though CS underestimated the other methods by about 10%, probably because it measures only E. coli, rather than the larger fecal coliform group measured by MF and MTF. CS overestimated total coliforms relative to the other methods by several fold and was found to have a 40% false positive rate in verification. Across-laboratory variability was small relative to within- and among-method variability, but only after data entry errors were corrected. One fifth of the laboratories committed data entry errors that were much larger than any method-related errors. These errors are particularly significant because these data were submitted in a test situation where laboratories were aware they would be under increased scrutiny. Under normal circumstances, it is unlikely that these errors would have been detected and managers would have been obliged to issue beach water quality warnings.</description><subject>Analysis methods</subject><subject>Applied sciences</subject><subject>Assessments</subject><subject>Bacteria</subject><subject>Beaches</subject><subject>California</subject><subject>Coastal waters</subject><subject>Colony Count, Microbial</subject><subject>Confidence Intervals</subject><subject>E coli</subject><subject>Earth sciences</subject><subject>Earth, ocean, space</subject><subject>Engineering and environment geology. Geothermics</subject><subject>Enterobacteriaceae - isolation &amp; purification</subject><subject>Environmental monitoring</subject><subject>Errors</subject><subject>Escherichia coli</subject><subject>Exact sciences and technology</subject><subject>Fecal coliforms</subject><subject>Feces</subject><subject>Feces - microbiology</subject><subject>Fermentation</subject><subject>Indicators</subject><subject>Laboratories</subject><subject>Marine</subject><subject>Measurement methods</subject><subject>Membrane filtration</subject><subject>Methods</subject><subject>Microbiology</subject><subject>Monitors</subject><subject>Natural water pollution</subject><subject>Pollution</subject><subject>Pollution, environment geology</subject><subject>Seawater - microbiology</subject><subject>Seawaters, estuaries</subject><subject>Water analysis</subject><subject>Water Microbiology - standards</subject><subject>Water monitoring</subject><subject>Water quality</subject><subject>Water quality management</subject><subject>Water quality measurements</subject><subject>Water sampling</subject><subject>Water treatment and pollution</subject><issn>0167-6369</issn><issn>1573-2959</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2006</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNqFks1rFTEUxYMo9ln9A9zIIKjdjN6bmSSTpTz8KBTc6Hq4kw9NmZm8JjNq-9c3j_ew4KKFQC6H3znchMPYS4T3CKA-ZAQpsQaQtRIK65tHbINCNTXXQj9mG0CpatlIfcKe5XwJAFq1-ik7KbrSEmDD_m7jtKMUcpwrmm3126Xgg6ElFCH6aiCzFInG6g-VobpaaQzLdRVmu6diqiZHeU1ucvNS5uVXtLlac5h_VjQNYa-aSHn5l5Bp2o0uP2dPPI3ZvTjep-zH50_ft1_ri29fzrcfL2rTCr7UHPTgG0JHchBWKDuIFqURToFA9Loj0VlrO-W1E4NrtCqHD1h8XrbWNKfs3SF3l-LV6vLSTyEbN440u7jmXgndoAauC_n2XlJ20HFs8UGQQ9dq0XUFPLsXRKUUguAoCvr6P_QyrmkuP1M2xEbzrlUFwgNkUsw5Od_vUpgoXfcI_b4R_aERfWlEv29Ef1M8r47B6zA5e-c4VqAAb44AZUOjTzSbkO84pbXS5TG3uxa_uA</recordid><startdate>20060501</startdate><enddate>20060501</enddate><creator>GRIFFITH, John F</creator><creator>AUMAND, Larissa A</creator><creator>LEE, Ioannice M</creator><creator>MCGEE, Charles D</creator><creator>OTHMAN, Laila L</creator><creator>RIITER, Kerry J</creator><creator>WALKER, Kathy O</creator><creator>WEISBERG, Stephen B</creator><general>Springer</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>IQODW</scope><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>7QL</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7T7</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TN</scope><scope>7U7</scope><scope>7UA</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H97</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>L.G</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>SOI</scope><scope>7SU</scope><scope>KR7</scope><scope>7TV</scope><scope>7U6</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20060501</creationdate><title>Comparison and verification of bacterial water quality indicator measurement methods using ambient coastal water samples</title><author>GRIFFITH, John F ; AUMAND, Larissa A ; LEE, Ioannice M ; MCGEE, Charles D ; OTHMAN, Laila L ; RIITER, Kerry J ; WALKER, Kathy O ; WEISBERG, Stephen B</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c452t-209bf3a1ea6b5d57db5416c5e70511f98a58ddd87f9e5be3973972b1209f64dc3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2006</creationdate><topic>Analysis methods</topic><topic>Applied sciences</topic><topic>Assessments</topic><topic>Bacteria</topic><topic>Beaches</topic><topic>California</topic><topic>Coastal waters</topic><topic>Colony Count, Microbial</topic><topic>Confidence Intervals</topic><topic>E coli</topic><topic>Earth sciences</topic><topic>Earth, ocean, space</topic><topic>Engineering and environment geology. Geothermics</topic><topic>Enterobacteriaceae - isolation &amp; purification</topic><topic>Environmental monitoring</topic><topic>Errors</topic><topic>Escherichia coli</topic><topic>Exact sciences and technology</topic><topic>Fecal coliforms</topic><topic>Feces</topic><topic>Feces - microbiology</topic><topic>Fermentation</topic><topic>Indicators</topic><topic>Laboratories</topic><topic>Marine</topic><topic>Measurement methods</topic><topic>Membrane filtration</topic><topic>Methods</topic><topic>Microbiology</topic><topic>Monitors</topic><topic>Natural water pollution</topic><topic>Pollution</topic><topic>Pollution, environment geology</topic><topic>Seawater - microbiology</topic><topic>Seawaters, estuaries</topic><topic>Water analysis</topic><topic>Water Microbiology - standards</topic><topic>Water monitoring</topic><topic>Water quality</topic><topic>Water quality management</topic><topic>Water quality measurements</topic><topic>Water sampling</topic><topic>Water treatment and pollution</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>GRIFFITH, John F</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>AUMAND, Larissa A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>LEE, Ioannice M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>MCGEE, Charles D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>OTHMAN, Laila L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>RIITER, Kerry J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>WALKER, Kathy O</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>WEISBERG, Stephen B</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><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>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Industrial and Applied Microbiology Abstracts (Microbiology A)</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Oceanic Abstracts</collection><collection>Toxicology Abstracts</collection><collection>Water Resources Abstracts</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>Proquest Health and Medical Complete</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Agriculture &amp; Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</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 Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM global</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>PML(ProQuest Medical Library)</collection><collection>ProQuest Science Journals</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>One Business (ProQuest)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</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>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Pollution Abstracts</collection><collection>Sustainability Science Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Environmental monitoring and assessment</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>GRIFFITH, John F</au><au>AUMAND, Larissa A</au><au>LEE, Ioannice M</au><au>MCGEE, Charles D</au><au>OTHMAN, Laila L</au><au>RIITER, Kerry J</au><au>WALKER, Kathy O</au><au>WEISBERG, Stephen B</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison and verification of bacterial water quality indicator measurement methods using ambient coastal water samples</atitle><jtitle>Environmental monitoring and assessment</jtitle><addtitle>Environ Monit Assess</addtitle><date>2006-05-01</date><risdate>2006</risdate><volume>116</volume><issue>1-3</issue><spage>335</spage><epage>344</epage><pages>335-344</pages><issn>0167-6369</issn><eissn>1573-2959</eissn><coden>EMASDH</coden><abstract>More than 30 laboratories routinely monitor water along southern California's beaches for bacterial indicators of fecal contamination. Data from these efforts frequently are combined and compared even though three different methods (membrane filtration (MF), multiple tube fermentation (MTF), and chromogenic substrate (CS) methods) are used. To assess data comparability and quantify variability within method and across laboratories, 26 laboratories participated in an intercalibration exercise. Each laboratory processed three replicates from eight ambient water samples employing the method or methods they routinely use for water quality monitoring. Verification analyses also were conducted on a subset of wells from the CS analysis to confirm or exclude the presence of the target organism. Enterococci results were generally comparable across methods. Confirmation revealed a 9% false positive rate and a 4% false negative rate in the CS method for enterococci, though these errors were small in the context of within- and among-laboratory variability. Fecal coliforms also were comparable across all methods, though CS underestimated the other methods by about 10%, probably because it measures only E. coli, rather than the larger fecal coliform group measured by MF and MTF. CS overestimated total coliforms relative to the other methods by several fold and was found to have a 40% false positive rate in verification. Across-laboratory variability was small relative to within- and among-method variability, but only after data entry errors were corrected. One fifth of the laboratories committed data entry errors that were much larger than any method-related errors. These errors are particularly significant because these data were submitted in a test situation where laboratories were aware they would be under increased scrutiny. Under normal circumstances, it is unlikely that these errors would have been detected and managers would have been obliged to issue beach water quality warnings.</abstract><cop>Dordrect</cop><pub>Springer</pub><pmid>16779600</pmid><doi>10.1007/s10661-006-7571-z</doi><tpages>10</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0167-6369
ispartof Environmental monitoring and assessment, 2006-05, Vol.116 (1-3), p.335-344
issn 0167-6369
1573-2959
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_759319029
source MEDLINE; SpringerLink (Online service)
subjects Analysis methods
Applied sciences
Assessments
Bacteria
Beaches
California
Coastal waters
Colony Count, Microbial
Confidence Intervals
E coli
Earth sciences
Earth, ocean, space
Engineering and environment geology. Geothermics
Enterobacteriaceae - isolation & purification
Environmental monitoring
Errors
Escherichia coli
Exact sciences and technology
Fecal coliforms
Feces
Feces - microbiology
Fermentation
Indicators
Laboratories
Marine
Measurement methods
Membrane filtration
Methods
Microbiology
Monitors
Natural water pollution
Pollution
Pollution, environment geology
Seawater - microbiology
Seawaters, estuaries
Water analysis
Water Microbiology - standards
Water monitoring
Water quality
Water quality management
Water quality measurements
Water sampling
Water treatment and pollution
title Comparison and verification of bacterial water quality indicator measurement methods using ambient coastal water samples
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-12T01%3A01%3A33IST&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%20and%20verification%20of%20bacterial%20water%20quality%20indicator%20measurement%20methods%20using%20ambient%20coastal%20water%20samples&rft.jtitle=Environmental%20monitoring%20and%20assessment&rft.au=GRIFFITH,%20John%20F&rft.date=2006-05-01&rft.volume=116&rft.issue=1-3&rft.spage=335&rft.epage=344&rft.pages=335-344&rft.issn=0167-6369&rft.eissn=1573-2959&rft.coden=EMASDH&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s10661-006-7571-z&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E68082141%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=751392847&rft_id=info:pmid/16779600&rfr_iscdi=true