Details:

• Alternative Title:
  J Environ Eng (New York)
• Personal Author:
  Kimble, Gina H. ; Amburgey, James E. ; Hill, Vincent R.

  Kimble, Gina H. ; Amburgey, James E. ; Hill, Vincent R. Less -
• Description:
  The EPA method 1623 is designed specifically for the detection of | and |, but the method has some issues with low and variable recoveries. Ultrafiltration has been used effectively for microorganism recovery from water samples but is not approved by the EPA. To determine the efficacy of using ultrafiltration, 10-L tap water and surface water samples were seeded with | and | and concentrated with either a pleated capsule filter or a hollow-fiber ultrafilter. For |, oocyst recovery in tap water was significantly higher for ultrafiltration (68%) versus the capsule filter (37%); ultrafiltration recovered 65% of oocysts in surface water versus 61% for the capsule filter. However, | cyst recovery was mixed. In tap water, the capsule filter produced a significantly better recovery (85%) of | compared with ultrafiltration (63%), but the surface water ultrafiltration recovery (81%) was significantly better than the capsule filter recovery (40%). Overall, ultrafiltration recoveries were equal to or better for |, but recoveries of | were varied depending on the filter used and the type of water analyzed.
• Keywords:
  [+]

  Drinking Water Laboratory Tests Methodology Microbes Surface Water
• Source:
  J Environ Eng (New York). 138(8):899-901
• Pubmed ID:
  26523086
• Pubmed Central ID:
  PMC4626446
• Document Type:
  Journal Article
• Funding:
  CC999999/Intramural CDC HHSUnited States/
• Main Document Checksum:
  [+]

  urn:sha256:ff36e87c95f13d7d3f07de60c8c0e74dbf6bca8c07a78b840b671b8e038cb69d
• Download URL:
  https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/36332/cdc_36332_DS1.pdf
• File Type:

Supporting Files