English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Comparison of methodologies for estimating the most probable number (MPN) of coliform in water samples In almost all aquatic environments are found in various microorganisms, including some pathogenic to man, which route of transmission is the fecal-oral cycle. Because the water is the food most consumed by people, it is associated with several cases of diseases and risks to public health. Thus, control of water quality prior to consumption is essential, and to guarantee its quality must be made analysis seeking to indicate contamination by fecal material of origin. The group of bacteria most commonly used for the determination of fecal contamination is the total coliform group, which has as subgroup thermotolerant coliforms. The bacterium Escherichia coli is a member of the group thermotolerant coliform, and is most suitable for determination of fecal contamination by being present in large quantities in feces of humans and warmblooded animals. For the analysis of bacteria of the group coliform and E. coli there are several methods, including the conventional method Multiple Tube Fermentation (MTF), and the rapid methods Colilert and Colitag. This study aimed to compare these three methods for analysis in water samples from different points with different contamination (supply, fountain and river) and compare the count found for thermotolerant coliform and E. coli by the method FTM. The methods Colilert, Colitag and FTM were equivalent in the analysis of total coliform in water samples from the fountain and supply, and the analysis of E. coli in samples of supply, fountain and river. For analysis of total coliform in water samples from the river, FTM method showes a significant difference compared to the methods Colilert and Colitag. Both rapid methods did not differ. The difference between these methods in these tests may be due to the presence of Aeromonas in the samples, which may have generated false-positive results in rapid methods, overestimating the total coliform count; or the largest capacity of rapid methods in recovering injured cells of coliforms, detecting a larger amount of these bacteria. Comparing the scores found for thermotolerant coliform and E. coli in the same samples was found a significant difference. This result is explained by a thermotolerant coliform group include bacteria not exclusively fecal origin, such as Klebsiella and Enterobacter, which may overestimate the faecal contamination of the sample. Since E. coli is exclusively fecal origin, being more suitable for such analysis. So, as rapid methods showed to be equivalent to the conventional method studied, one should prefer the use of rapid methods that give results in 24 hours, indicating the water quality in time to prevent its use in the population. In choosing between coliform thermotolerant bacteria and E. coli for the indication of fecal contamination, it is preferable to use E. coli.

Comparação de metodologias para a estimativa do número mais provável (NMP) de coliformes em amostras de água