Comparison of AOAC Method and Fluorogenic (MUG) Assay for Enumerating <i>Escherichia coli</i> in Foods

Peterson, Eugene H.; Nierman, Mark L.; Rude, Richard A; Peeler, James T.

doi:10.1111/j.1365-2621.1987.tb06626.x

Cited by 14 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…No significant differences were found in the counts by the two methods (Farber 1986). Peterson et al (1987) compared the AOAC standard MPN method (AOAC 1984) with LTB-MUG-MPN (Feng & Hartman 1982;Koburger & Miller 1985). Twelve replicate samples of different foods and different contamination levels were examined and results were evaluated statistically.…”

Section: Smentioning

confidence: 99%

Methods for the detection and isolation of Escherichia coli including pathogenic strains

Hofstra¹,

Veld²

1988

J Appl Microbiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Smentioning

confidence: 99%

Methods for the detection and isolation of Escherichia coli including pathogenic strains

Hofstra¹,

Veld²

1988

J Appl Microbiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Some authors assume that 4% of E. coli strains are b-D-glucuronidase-negative (Moberg 1985;Peterson et al 1987). In this study no false-negative results were registered.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 53%

Specificity of a defined substrate method used to monitor balneability of tropical coastal waters impacted by polluted stormwater

Sousa¹,

Evangelista-Barreto

Catter

et al. 2010

Journal of Water and Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Defined substrate (DS) is an alternative technique to monitoring the water quality based on species-specific enzyme activity. Although more sensitive and more specific than traditional media, there is some controversy over use in the warmer waters of tropical and subtropical environments, rich in organic matter and microorganism groups capable of interfering with results. The aim of this study was to test the specificity of DS method (Colilert, IDEXX) for detection of coliforms and Escherichia coli in stormwater seawater samples from a coastal city (Fortaleza, Brazil) compared to findings obtained with the multiple tube fermentation (MTF) method. The samples were collected from stormsewers and adjacent seashore locations. The most probable number (MPN) of total coliforms (TC), thermotolerant coliforms (TtC) and E. coli was determined and the selectivity of the enzymatic substrate medium in the seawater samples was tested. The MTF method showed samples from sampling points 1, 2 and 3 to be 13.3, 13.3 and 46.7%, respectively, above the legal cut-off value for coastal balneability. With the DS method, the corresponding figures were 60, 53.3 and 80% for E. coli. Overall, coliform levels were higher with the DS medium. Vibrios and aeromonads were isolated from E. coli-positive DS tubes.

show abstract

“…As not all tubes were confirmed by Eosin Methylene Blue agar and IMViC tests according to the FDA method, it was not possible to determine the actual level of false-positive and false-negative results. Even assuming that 4% of strains are b-glucuronidase-negative (Moberg 1985;Peterson et al 1987), the MUG method is still more sensitive than the ISO method. Although some species of Salmonella, Shigella and Yersinia reportedly produce the enzyme b-glucoronidase (Feng and Hartman 1982;Robison 1984) and are therefore able to generate fluorescence from MUG, none were encountered in the >1400 samples evaluated by Moberg (1985).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…1993) and the MUG technique, for their natural contamination of faecal coliforms and E. coli . Although earlier studies had compared the standard FDA and MUG techniques, evaluating the latter as being easy to perform, rapid, sensitive and labour‐saving (Peterson et al . 1987), no known studies have compared the MUG and ISO techniques.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of LST + MUG broth technique and conventional method for the enumeration of Escherichia coli in foods

Doğan

Çakır

Başpınar

et al. 2002

Lett Appl Microbiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims: To reduce the analysis time needed for the enumeration of Escherichia coli, a rapid fluorogenic method (MUG) which takes only 48 h was compared with the standard most probable number (MPN) method which takes 6 days as described in the International Standards Organization (ISO). This study provides reliability data for the fluorogenic method applied to certain foods. Methods and Results: Both methods were applied to 500 food samples which were analysed for E. coli enumeration. Agreement between the two methods was found in 409 (81AE8%) samples; 81 (16AE2%) samples gave higher values by the fluorogenic method, and only 10 (2AE0%) samples were more effectively assayed by the ISO method. According to statistical analysis, the reliability between the methods was r ¼ 0AE9706, r 2 ¼ 0AE9421 and Cronbach's a ¼ 0AE9851. While all three values showed a high degree of correlation (P < 0AE0001) between the two methods, McNemar's test demonstrated a significant difference between them, indicating that the MUG method was more reliable than the ISO method. Conclusions: The data suggest that the fluorogenic method is more reliable and shorter to perform than the standard ISO method. Significance and Impact of the Study: Comparison of the two methods may provide a rapid and more reliable alternative for the enumeration of E. coli in food samples.

show abstract

Comparison of AOAC Method and Fluorogenic (MUG) Assay for Enumerating Escherichia coli in Foods

Cited by 14 publications

References 0 publications

Methods for the detection and isolation of Escherichia coli including pathogenic strains

Methods for the detection and isolation of Escherichia coli including pathogenic strains

Specificity of a defined substrate method used to monitor balneability of tropical coastal waters impacted by polluted stormwater

Comparison of LST + MUG broth technique and conventional method for the enumeration of Escherichia coli in foods

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About