ArticleFEMS microbiology letters2024
Comparison of PetrifilmTM AC and pour plate techniques used for the heterotrophic aerobic bacterial count in water.
Article in FEMS microbiology letters, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Heterotrophic bacteria are commonly found in water samples. While these Heterotrophic Bacterial/Plate Counts (HPC) do not necessarily indicate a health hazard, high counts provide a good indication of the efficiency of water disinfection and integrity of distribution systems. The aim of this study was to compare the PetrifimTM AC method to the pour plate technique for the testing of HPC in water samples. Artificially contaminated (192 samples) and natural water samples (25) were processed using two methods. Both methods accurately detected high, medium and low counts of HPC, producing average Z scores between -2 and +2. Paired-wise student t-test and correlation coefficient showed nonsignificant differences between the results of two methods. Acceptable repeatability and reproducibility was obtained using both the methods. Uncertainty of measurement for PetrifilmTM AC and pour plate method was found to be 2.9% and 5.4%, respectively. PetrifilmTM AC proved to be robust at 33°C and 37°C. In conclusion, PetrifimTM AC, which is easy to process, read, and less time consuming, proved to be comparable to the conventional pour plate method in establishing HPC in water. In addition, PetrifimTM AC requires less space for the processing and incubation, generate small volume of waste for disposal, and requires no equipment, except for the incubator.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.