Keywords
E. coli
water analysis
How to Cite
Abstract
The total coliform and E. coli counts were performed using three methodologies (Multiple-Tube
Fermentation - MTF, Colilert and Colitag) in water samples collected from three different points (water
supply, spout and river). The performances of three methodologies were compared analyzing ninety water
samples. In the analysis of total coliform of water samples from spout and supply and analysis of E. coli
of water samples from supply, tap and river, Colilert and Colitag techniques were equivalent to MTF in
counting these bacteria. However, for analyzing the total coliform in water samples collected from river,
the MTF technique differed significantly from those rapid tests. This significant difference may be due to
the presence of Aeromonas in water samples, or possibly because of the increased capacity of Colilert and
Colitag techniques in recovering the injured cells. Thus, in event of the rapid technique were equivalent to
conventional ones, the former should be used, as they are fast, practical and inexpensive.
References
1. Macedo JAB de. Águas e águas. 3ª ed. Belo Horizonte:CRQ-MG; 2007.
2. Tortora GJ, Funke BR, Case CL. Microbiologia.8ª ed. Porto Alegre: Artmed; 2005.
3. Franco BDGM, Landgraf M. Microbiologia dos alimentos. São Paulo: Atheneu; 2008.
4. Silva N, Catanúsio Neto R, Junqueira VCA, Silveira NFA. Manual de métodos de análise microbiológica da água. São Paulo: Varela; 2005.
5. Jay JM. Microbiologia de alimentos. 6ª ed.Porto Alegre: Artmed; 2005.
6. Olstadt J, Schauer JJ, Standridge J, Kluender S. A comparison of ten USEPA approved total coliform/E. coli tests. J Water Health. 2007;5(2):267-82.
7. BioAmerica. Colitag: Exatidão, Simplicidade e Segurança. [acesso 2010 Set 29]. Disponível em: [http://www.grupos.com.br/group/engenhariadeaquicultura/Messages.html?action=download&year=07&month=9&id=1189445991709878&attach=].
8. Hunt HE, Rice EW, coordinators. Microbiological examinations. In: Standard methods for the examination of water & wastewater, 21ª ed. Washington: APHA; 2005. Part 9000, p. 9-1 – 9-169.
9. SAS Institute. SAS/STAT User Guide: vertion 6.08. Carrey. 1997. v. 2.
10. Box GEP, Cox DR. An analysis of transformations. J R Stat Soc Series B Stat Methodol. 1964;26:211-46.
11. Cantusio Neto R. Comparação entre os métodos de tubos múltiplos e o substrato cromogênico enzimático (ONPG/MUG), para detecção de coliformes na água tratada. Hig Aliment. 2001;15(90/91):64-7.
12. Eckner KF. Comparison of membrane filtration and multiple-tube fermentation by the Colilert enterolert methods for detection of waterborne coliform bacteria, Escherichia coli and Enterococci used in drinking water and bathing water quality monitoring in southern Sweden. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1998;64(8):3079-83.
13. Hsieh JJ. A comparison of the Multiple-tube fermentation method and Colitag method for the detection of waterborne coliform bacteria. [Acesso 2008 Jul 25]. Disponível em: [http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~es196/projects/2001final/Hsieh.pdf.]
14. Greghi S de Q. Avaliação da eficiência de métodos rápidos usados para detecção de coliformes totais e coliformes fecais em amostras de água em comparação com a técnica da fermentação em tubos múltiplos [dissertação de mestrado]. Araraquara (SP): Universidade Estadual Paulista “Julio de Mesquita Filho”; 2005.
15. Cowburn JK, Goodall T, Fricker EJ, Walter KS, Fricker CR. A preliminary study of the use of Colilert for water quality monitoring. Lett Appl Microbiol. 1994;19:50-2.
16. Fricker EJ, Illingworth KS, Fricker CR. Use of two formulations of Colilert and Quantitray for assessment of the bacteriological quality of water. Water Res. 1997;31(10):2495-9.
17. Chao KK, Chao CC, Chao WL. Suitability of the traditional microbial indicators and their enumerating methods in the assessment of fecal pollution of subtropical freshwater environments. J Microbiol Immunol Infect. 2003;36(4):288-93.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2010 Instituto Adolfo Lutz Journal