2004
DOI: 10.1016/j.mimet.2003.12.010
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Enumeration of Clostridium perfringens spores in groundwater samples: comparison of six culture media

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

3
30
0

Year Published

2008
2008
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 36 publications
(33 citation statements)
references
References 7 publications
3
30
0
Order By: Relevance
“…C. perfringens spores are less affected by the residual concentrations of chlorine. Testing for the spores of this bacterium can probably provide an added margin of safety in the evaluation of treatment [114]. …”
Section: Microbiological Water Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…C. perfringens spores are less affected by the residual concentrations of chlorine. Testing for the spores of this bacterium can probably provide an added margin of safety in the evaluation of treatment [114]. …”
Section: Microbiological Water Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…C. perfringens is able to form spores and therefore is a better choice as an indicator to predict protozoan cysts and viruses (Araujo et al 2004). The use of this indicator was proposed for monitoring of the drinking water quality, and the new European Union regulations consider more specifically C. perfringens as the indicator of choice (European Union 1998).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Other studies (Araujo et al, 2004, Di Bari et al, 2007 have reported regular occurrence of C. perfringens. A regular incidence of C. perfringens spores in groundwater samples from public springs used for direct human consumption was detected in Spain (Araujo et al, 2004) where 40 of 51 groundwater samples analyzed (78.4%) were found to be positive for C. perfringens spores. Di Bari et al (2007) in São Paulo, Brazil, reported the presence of C. perfringens in 16.5% (103 samples) of the drinkable water sources analyzed.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 82%