Next Article in Journal
Performance Assessment System for Energy Efficiency in Wastewater Systems
Previous Article in Journal
Depth–Sequential Investigation of Major Ions, δ18O, δ2H and δ13C in Fractured Aquifers of the St. Lawrence Lowlands (Quebec, Canada) Using Passive Samplers
Article

Comparison of the ColiPlate™ Kit with Two Common E. coli Enumeration Methods for Water

Department of Environmental Health Science, Eastern Kentucky University, Richmond, KY 40475, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Academic Editor: Anu Kumar
Water 2021, 13(13), 1804; https://doi.org/10.3390/w13131804
Received: 15 May 2021 / Revised: 20 June 2021 / Accepted: 24 June 2021 / Published: 29 June 2021
(This article belongs to the Section Water and One Health)
Quantitatively assessing fecal indicator bacteria in drinking water from limited resource settings (e.g., disasters, remote areas) can inform public health strategies for reducing waterborne illnesses. This study aimed to compare two common approaches for quantifying Escherichia coli (E. coli) density in natural water versus the ColiPlate™ kit approach. For comparing methods, 41 field samples from natural water sources in Kentucky (USA) were collected. E. coli densities were then determined by (1) membrane filtration in conjunction with modified membrane-thermotolerant E. coli (mTEC) agar, (2) Idexx Quanti-Tray® 2000 with the Colilert® substrate, and (3) the Bluewater Biosciences ColiPlate kit. Significant correlations were observed between E. coli density data for all three methods (p < 0.001). Paired t-test results showed no difference in E. coli densities determined by all the methods (p > 0.05). Upon assigning modified mTEC as the reference method for determining the World Health Organization-assigned “very high-risk” levels of fecal contamination (>100 E. coli CFU/100 mL), both ColiPlate and Colilert exhibited excellent discrimination for screening very high-risk levels according to the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (~89%). These data suggest ColiPlate continues to be an effective monitoring tool for quantifying E. coli density and characterizing fecal contamination risks from water. View Full-Text
Keywords: fecal indicator bacteria; water quality; E. coli; ColiPlate; Colilert; environmental microbiology fecal indicator bacteria; water quality; E. coli; ColiPlate; Colilert; environmental microbiology
Show Figures

Figure 1

  • Supplementary File 1:

    ZIP-Document (ZIP, 9 KiB)

  • Externally hosted supplementary file 1
    Doi: 10.5281/zenodo.4763795
    Description: Excel data file for comparing results of ColiPlate, Colilert, and membrane filtration with modified mTEC agar.
MDPI and ACS Style

Gibson, C.J.; Maritim, A.K.; Marion, J.W. Comparison of the ColiPlate™ Kit with Two Common E. coli Enumeration Methods for Water. Water 2021, 13, 1804. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13131804

AMA Style

Gibson CJ, Maritim AK, Marion JW. Comparison of the ColiPlate™ Kit with Two Common E. coli Enumeration Methods for Water. Water. 2021; 13(13):1804. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13131804

Chicago/Turabian Style

Gibson, Cassi J., Abraham K. Maritim, and Jason W. Marion 2021. "Comparison of the ColiPlate™ Kit with Two Common E. coli Enumeration Methods for Water" Water 13, no. 13: 1804. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13131804

Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Back to TopTop