ENDETEC – Global Sensor Platform 

Suite 4697, Biosciences Complex, 116 Barrie Street 

Kingston, Ontario, Canada K7L 3N6 

tel. 613-533-3321 · fax 613-533-3317 

toll free 866-362-0993 

www.endetec.com 

30 May 2014 

Dr. James Sinclair 

United States Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Groundwater and Drinking Water 

26 West Martin Luther King Drive 

Cincinnati, Ohio 45268 

By Electronic Delivery 

RE: ATP Case D11-0005: Confirmation of Method Nomenclature 

With respect to the above-mentioned ATP case, I am writing to confirm both the 

nomenclature used in the original study report / documentation and to indicate the official 

commercial name of the method that will be used in the marketplace. 

The name ENDETECTM was employed as the working name for the method as performed in 

the ATP study as described in the ATP Study Report entitled “ATP Study Report for the 

Proposed US EPA Approval of ENDETECTM, an Automated Method for Detecting Total 

Coliforms and E. coli in Drinking Water, under the US EPA Microbiological Alternate Test 

Procedure (ATP)”, dated June 12, 2013. 

It is hereby requested that the following nomenclature be adopted for this method: 

 For generic reference to the method: TECTATM EC/TC Method. 

 For reference to the specific reagent medium employed in the method: TECTATM

EC/TC Medium. 

 For reference to the instrument required to perform the method: TECTATM EC/TC 

Instrument. 

Please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned should you require additional information. 

Sincerely, 

Dr. Peter Gallant 

Vice-President, Regulatory Affairs 

ENDETEC / Veolia Water 
ENDETEC Method - ATP Case D11-0005 

1

ATP Study Report for the Proposed US EPA Approval 

of ENDETECTM, an Automated Method for Detecting 

Total Coliforms and E. coli in Drinking Water, under 

the USEPA Microbiological Alternate Test Procedure 

(ATP) 

Study Report

ATP Case Number D11-0005 

Originally Submitted June 12, 2013

Revised January 30, 2014

Veolia Water Solutions and Technologies

Suite 4697, Biosciences Complex, 116 Barrie Street

Kingston, Ontario, Canada K7L 3N6
ENDETEC Method - ATP Case D11-0005 

2

1. Background

Introduction:

This report describes a study that was initiated following the US EPA (2010) 

Alternate Test Procedure (ATP) guidance protocol. The purpose of the study 

was to evaluate the performance of the ENDETECTM method (note: this is a 

working name for the method and is subject to change) for detecting 

coliform and E. coli bacteria, in support of US EPA approval for compliance 

monitoring of public drinking water systems as required by the Total Coliform 

Rule. Data generated for this study were collected in accordance with the 

ATP Study Plan (D11-0005) approved by the US EPA on December 5, 2012 

(Appendix A). ENDETECTM is an automated method for detecting total 

coliforms and E. coli in drinking water.

A review is presented of the data collected during this study to compare the 

performance of the ENDETECTM method against Standard Method SM9221B 

(Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 21st

Edition) using Lauryl Tryptose Broth (LTB) with confirmation using Brilliant 

Green Lactose Bile Broth (BGLB) for detecting total coliforms, and LTB with 

confirmation using Escherichia coli Medium (EC-MUG, SM9221F) for 

Escherichia coli (E. coli) bacteria in drinking water samples. 

Justification:

The ENDETECTM method can detect total coliform and E. coli bacteria in

potable water samples. Samples are identified as containing the target 

organisms by continuously monitoring the concentration of fluorescent 

products, and when a threshold is reached, the instrument records a “time to 

detect” (TTD) value for any targets that are present. The method offers 

considerable advantages to laboratories and analysts in terms of ease of use, 

accuracy, and time to results over SM9221B, and it notifies the user as soon 

as the threshold is reached so that corrective action may be started earlier. 

Therefore, ENDETEC, a business unit within Veolia Water Solutions and 

Technologies, (a wholly owned subsidiary of Veolia Water) initiated this study 

to obtain US EPA approval for total coliform and E. coli for the analysis of 

drinking water samples.
ENDETEC Method - ATP Case D11-0005 

3

Method Summary:

The Proposed Method (ENDETECTM) is based on the detection of two 

enzymes, β-D-galactosidase which is indicative of the presence of total 

coliforms and β-D-glucuronidase that additionally indicates the presence of E. 

coli. As the target organisms grow, they hydrolyze the enzyme substrates 

specific for β-D-galactosidase and β-D-glucuronidase. In addition, nonselective nutritive components support the growth of target organisms, and 

antimicrobial agents in the test medium suppress the growth of non-target 

bacteria. 

The ENDETECTM Method detects the presence or absence of total coliforms 

and E. coli in water samples and is intended for drinking water analysis. A 

cartridge containing the culture medium is filled with a water sample. After 

dissolution of the medium, the cartridge is incubated in the instrument and 

the presence of total coliforms and/or E. coli is detected automatically.

The detection of the fluorescent products from these two enzyme substrates 

is similar to other commercially available products. The cleavage products of 

the enzymes are hydrophobic and fluorescent under ultraviolet illumination,

emitting at two different wavelengths to allow E. coli to be distinguished 

from other total coliforms. The fluorescent enzyme products diffuse into a 

polymer in the base of the cartridge where their presence is detected by the 

instrument. When the concentration of the enzyme product(s) reaches a 

pre-set threshold of intensity the instrument determines that total coliforms 

and/or E. coli are present. 

This Proposed Method is an improvement over previous methods because it 

provides an automated system for reading and incubation that is secure, 

simple to use and rapid. In addition, it allows notification of positive results as 

soon as they occur, often well before the final endpoint of the test when the 

sample is negative. The Proposed Method includes an alternative medium 

designed to give maximum recovery of total coliforms and E. coli while 

restricting the growth of other non-target organisms. Furthermore the 

method allows for the automated detection of the target organisms by an 

instrument (TECTA B-16TM or other instruments that meet the instrument 

performance requirements of the ENDETECTM Method), which regularly scans 

the polymer inserted in the cartridge bottle for the presence of the 

hydrophobic products of enzyme activity on the substrates. This removes the 

need for qualitative assessment of the results, which is required by other 

methods. This side by side study is aimed at demonstrating equivalence of 

the Proposed Method for the detection of total coliforms and E. coli in 

drinking water as compared to SM9221B and SM9221F.
ENDETEC Method - ATP Case D11-0005 

4

2. Study Objectives and Design:

The intent of this study is to evaluate the proposed method, ENDETECTM, as a 

potential method of analysis for compliance monitoring for total coliforms 

and E. coli in drinking water and demonstrate equivalency to EPA reference 

methods. The study compares the performance of ENDETECTM to EPA defined 

reference methods based on the EPA Microbiological Alternate Test 

Procedure (ATP) Protocol for Drinking Water, Ambient Water, Wastewater, 

and Sewage Sludge Monitoring Methods (September, 2010). Specific 

methods used are derived from Standard Methods for the Examination of 

Water and Wastewater, (21st Edition). Endetec/Veolia commissioned the 

described study to support the request for nationwide approval from the US 

EPA for use of ENDETECTM for compliance monitoring under the National 

Primary Drinking Water Regulations.

Quality Objectives:

The quality objectives of the study are to provide the EPA with data 

compliant to the intent of the approved study plan as defined in the 2010 

ATP Protocol. The study plan was performed by a third party laboratory 

(Pinellas County Utilities, Largo, FL). Side by side replicate analyses were 

performed on chlorinated sewage spiked into drinking water using 

ENDETECTM as the proposed method and LTB (SM9221B), with BGLB 

confirmation for total coliforms (TC), and LTB with confirmation using ECMUG (SM9221F) for E. coli (EC), as the reference methods.

Study Implementation:

All laboratory work for this study was carried out at the laboratory of Pinellas 

County Utilities, located in Largo, Florida. The Study Director was Marsha 

Pryor, of Pinellas County Utilities (PCU). PCU was responsible for the 

coordination of collection of primary effluent samples, from a wide variety of 

sources, running the experiments, recording the data, and maintaining all 

QA/QC records specified in the US EPA-approved Study Protocol.

This facility was chosen because of their wealth of experience in performing 

non-routine microbiological studies and their accreditation status. PCU is 

NELAC accredited and an approved EPA laboratory for the analysis of drinking 

water for the presence of total coliforms and E. coli. Endetec/Veolia also 

engaged experienced consultants to conduct pre-study evaluations of the 

PCU laboratory as well as routine data quality audits, and made available as a 

resource to PCU to address any questions or issues with the implementation 

of the ATP protocol.
ENDETEC Method - ATP Case D11-0005 

5

Type of Study:

The study was a side-by-side method comparison comparing the ENDETECTM 

method with SM9221B and SM9221F, US EPA-approved methods, to 

determine if the performance of the ENDETECTM method was acceptable 

compared to the reference method.

Study Schedule:

The data for this study was collected during the period January through April 

2013. 

Spiking Source:

Primary effluent samples were collected from a number of sewage treatment 

plants from various geographic locations in the United States. The sources of 

these samples are shown in Table 1. The study initially used secondary 

effluent as sources. However, there were not sufficient targets present to 

allow for chlorination and final dilution of the samples. With EPA approval, 

the samples were switched to primary effluent sources and all of the data 

included in this report are generated from primary, not secondary samples.

Table 1. Sources of samples used for comparison studies.

Date Collected Date Received Treatment Plant Target Organism

01/31/2013 01/31/2013 South Cross Bayou, FL EC

02/04/2013 02/05/2013 South Burlington, VT EC

02/11/2013 02/12/2013 Las Cruces, NM EC

03/07/2013 03/08/2013 Pennridge, PA EC

03/08/2013 03/08/2013 Palm Harbor / Dunn, FL EC

03/07/2013 03/08/2013 San Diego, CA EC

03/10/2013 03/12/2013 Iowa City, IA EC

03/14/2013 03/15/2013 Denton, TX EC

04/15/2013 04/16/2013 Valley Forge, PA EC

04/18/2013 04/19/2013 Downers Grove, IL EC

02/14/2013 02/15/2013 Chattanooga, TN TC

02/20/2013 02/22/2013 Iowa City, IA TC

02/21/2013 02/22/2013 Raleigh, NC TC

03/08/2013 03/08/2013 Palm Harbor/ Dunn, FL TC

03/07/2013 03/08/2013 Las Cruces, NM TC

03/07/2013 03/08/2013 Pennridge, PA TC

03/07/2013 03/08/2013 San Diego, CA TC

03/11/2013 03/12/2013 Penn Yann, NY TC

03/18/2013 03/19/2013 S. Burlington, VT TC

03/18/2013 03/19/2013 Valley Forge, PA TC
ENDETEC Method - ATP Case D11-0005 

6

Because an insufficient number of negative samples were obtained from 

ENDETECTM results in the side by side comparison to LTB, additional samples 

were collected and further disinfections were performed for the purpose of 

range finding. The details of these samples are shown in Table 2. For this 

phase of the study, the range finding was based on ENDETECTM results, and 

the reference methods were only used for confirmation, thereby producing 

enough negative results for ENDETEC to complete the sample counts 

required by the approved ATP study protocol for the false negative and false 

positive calculations. 

Table 2. Additional samples used to obtain negative samples with 

the ENDETECTM method

Date Collected Date Received Treatment Plant Target Organism

04/15/2013 04/16/2013 Denton, TX TC

04/18/2013 04/19/2013 South Burlington, VT TC

04/18/2013 04/19/2013 San Diego, CA TC

04/23/2013 04/23/2013 Palm Harbor / Dunn, FL TC

04/09/2013 04/10/2013 Iowa City, IA EC

04/12/2013 04/13/2013 Valley Forge, PA EC

04/07/2013 04/08/2013 San Diego, CA EC

04/07/2013 04/08/2013 Las Cruces, TX EC

04/08/2013 04/08/2013 Palm Harbor / Dunn, FL EC

04/12/2013 04/13/2013 Valley Forge, PA EC

All samples were shipped by Federal Express Overnight Priority courier on ice 

and were received at PCU the day after shipping. For two local sample 

sources, Palm Harbor and South Cross Bayou, samples were collected and 

shipped to the laboratory for receipt on the day they were collected. 

Standard chain-of-custody and sample handling procedures were employed.

Study Matrix

The matrix used in this study was chloraminated tap water from Largo, FL, 

which is a blend of ground and surface water. Removal of residual 

disinfectant activity was attempted initially by allowing the water to stand for 

48 hours. This was not found to be adequate to fully remove the chloramine

in all cases. This was subsequently resolved by passing the water through a 

commercially available activated carbon filter (Brita FilterTM SAFF-100)

designed to remove residual disinfectant. Filtering of water through the 

carbon filter commenced on March 8.
ENDETEC Method - ATP Case D11-0005 

7

Training and Preliminary Testing:

Endetec/Veolia personnel and consultants performed initial and/or refresher

training as required on the methods employed in the study at PCU. 

Samples Used

The sewage samples used for spiking the drinking water matrix are shown in 

Tables 1 and 2. Typical characteristics of the drinking water matrix were 

obtained from PCU archives and are shown in Table 3.

Table 3. Typical analyses of tap water used for the comparison study (mg/L) 

(mean of 7 samples)

Analyte

 

Concentration (mg/L) or

Data Value

Total chlorine

4.01

Sulfate

32.43

Hardness

201

Alkalinity

187

Copper

0.007

Ammonia

0.26

Chloride

26

Numbers and types of analyses used

Ten different primary sewage samples obtained from geographically-diverse 

locations throughout the United Stated were used for the study. The sources 

are listed in Tables 1 and 2. Each sample was used to spike disinfectant-free 

drinking water obtained at the PCU laboratory from a drinking water faucet. 

Each spiked sample was used to prepare twenty (20) replicates for the 

ENDETECTM method and twenty (20) for the EPA-required reference method. 

Only data sets where the number of positive samples by the reference 

method was in the range 5-15 (out of 20 replicates) were used for 

comparison with the ENDETECTM method. Because too few samples gave 

negative results in the initial side by side comparison with the ENDETECTM

method, additional samples were used to generate negative ENDETECTM

samples. Only data sets where 5-15 (out of 20) of the ENDETECTM samples 

were positive were used for the additional negative sample data. 

Confirmations were performed on the additional samples run for negatives. 
ENDETEC Method - ATP Case D11-0005 

8

This procedure is consistent with that described in the approved ATP study 

plan.

Collection, transport and storage of samples

All drinking water (dilution matrix) samples were collected from a drinking 

water faucet at the PCU laboratory. Samples were filtered through a Brita 

filter, collected into 10 liter cubitainers, stored at room temperature and 

were used within 96 hours of collection. Primary sewage effluent samples 

were collected by participating utilities and were shipped on ice by overnight 

courier. Two sources of primary effluent that originated in Florida were 

shipped on ice for same day delivery. All primary effluent samples were used 

within five days of collection and were stored at 1-5oC.

Enumeration of spiking suspensions

Drinking water samples were spiked with disinfected primary sewage 

effluent. The initial enumeration of the spiking suspension was performed 

using Colilert-18® in Quanti-Trays®. All disinfected, neutralized spiking 

suspensions were held at 1-5 °C and used within 48 hours of preparation.

Suspensions were brought to ambient temperature before use.

Problems encountered with samples or equipment and their subsequent 

resolution

Specific problems are described below under “Changes in the protocol during 

the study”. There were three issues encountered:

• Atypical reaction of Enterococcus faecalis in the ENDETECTM total 

coliform test, where it gave sporadic positive results at high inoculum 

levels.

• Residual disinfectant remaining in the drinking water samples after 

storage for 48 hours at ambient temperature.

• Inability to extract sample aliquots at 16 hours and continue 

incubation to 18 hours with the ENDETECTM procedure due to 

software design security features and generation of optical transients.

Resolution of these issues is described in the following section.

During the study it became apparent that the disinfection procedure was not 

working well and there was some difficulty in obtaining comparisons in which 

the reference method gave 25-75% positive replicates. The level of the spike 

was determined using Colilert-18 with Quanti-Tray as described in the study 

protocol. However, when samples were prepared, no growth of targets was 

seen in either the reference procedure or the test method. This indicated 

that the organisms were being inactivated prior to analysis in the side by side 

study. Upon further investigation, it was determined that in some samples of 
ENDETEC Method - ATP Case D11-0005 

9

tap water, even after standing for a period of 48 hours, residual disinfectant 

activity was found. 

At this point in the study, the procedure removal of residual disinfectant in 

the tap water was changed from allowing the water to stand, to passing 

through a Brita carbon filter, designed to remove chlorine. This resolved the 

problem. Testing of the water after passing through the carbon filter showed 

that no chlorine or chloramine was present and that the dilution water matrix 

and targets were sufficiently stable for the period of use (48 hr) that the 

target range was attained. Ongoing testing of the dechlorinated water 

controls showed that coliforms were absent.

The approved study design described a procedure where both 16 and 18 

hour confirmations were performed, on the same sample dilution, on the 

same run, in order to determine an appropriate endpoint for the ENDETEC 

method. This was found to cause a problem with the instrument because its

design incorporates a feature that prevents tampering with samples and also 

removal of the sample cartridges to extract aliquots caused transient signals 

in the optical data. Therefore, it was not feasible to sample at 16 hr and then 

complete the incubation and resample for 18 hr. For this reason, all initial 

data generated in December 2012 and early January 2013 was considered 

potentially compromised and was excluded from the study. The study 

recommenced in late January 2013 with a single (18 hour) time point for 

confirmations from the ENDETECTM method. It is anticipated that faster test 

endpoints may be achieved in the future with enhancements to the optical 

detection algorithms employed in instruments that support the ENDETECTM

method.

During the study, the initial controls used were: low level Enterobacter 

aerogenes, low level E. coli (approximately 30 cfu), high level Pseudomonas 

aeruginosa (as a total coliform negative control) and high level Enterococcus 

faecalis (as an E. coli negative control). During the early part of the study for 

E. coli runs, occasional abnormal results were seen with the strain of 

Enterococcus faecalis, where a positive result was obtained for total 

coliforms. To correct this issue, the negative control for E. coli runs was 

changed to a high level (>1000 cfu) Enterobacter aerogenes. The abnormal 

results with E. faecalis were investigated by inoculating ENDETECTM medium

with different levels of organisms. The results are shown in Table 4.
ENDETEC Method - ATP Case D11-0005 

10

Table 4. Reaction of the ENDETECTM method to inoculation with 

Enterococcus faecalis at differing inocula levels.

CFU determined on mEI 

agar ENDETEC result total coliforms ENDETEC result E. coli

196 Absent Absent

196 Absent Absent

196 Absent Absent

196 Present 17:53 hours Absent

18,300 Absent Absent

18,300 Absent Absent

19,600 Present 15:34 hours Absent

19,600 Present 15:36 hours Absent

19,600 Present 14:37 hours Absent

19,600 Present 15:35 hours Absent

The data show that there is little interference from enterococci at low (<200 

cfu) concentrations, but that when high concentrations are present in the 

inoculum, a positive total coliform result can be seen. On no occasion, either 

during the study or during the supplemental study, was a false positive E. coli 

result seen using E. faecalis as an E. coli control.

On Feb 25, two ODW blanks were run along with one SDW blank. One of the ODW blanks 

gave a coliform positive indication on the TECTATM instrument. Confirmation testing 

indicated the sample was negative, and the cartridge was clear with no signs of growth after 

the test, as expected. The absolute cause is unknown, because the other two blanks and 

indeed several negative samples running in the two TECTATM instruments operated that day 

did not give positive indications. It is possible that contamination within the chamber 

played a role in the false result, either by direct optical interference or by affecting the 

position of the cartridge during incubation. Routine maintenance, including cleaning of the 

optics, was subsequently performed on the specific instrument, and no further false 

indications of this kind for negative controls were seen over the course of testing.

4. Data Reporting and Validation

All data produced during the studies described in this report were generated 

at the PCU laboratory. Copies of all data, including bench sheets were also 

provided to Endetec/Veolia, which provided digital data transcription and 

statistical summaries of the data. Original bench sheets were held at the PCU 

in study binders. The log reductions obtained and the target concentration of
ENDETEC Method - ATP Case D11-0005 

11

organisms is shown in Table 5. All log reductions were in the ranges required 

by the approved ATP study plan.

Table 5. Samples used to generate comparison data

Date

Analysis 

started Site

Chlorine 

added to 

achieve 

disinfection 

target

(mg/L)

Log 

reduction

Target 

concentration 

per 100 ml 

sample (cfu)

Initial 

count of 

diluted 

sample

(MPN/ml)

Time 

between 

disinfection 

and 

analysis

(hours)

2-1-13 South Cross 10.0 2.27 EC 4.7 5794 24

2-6-13

South 

Burlington

8.8

2.25 EC 5.1 7270 24

2-14-13 Las Cruces 7.5 2.03 EC 5.4 12997 24

2-17-13 Chattanooga 8.8 2.37 TC 7.9 41060 48

2-25-13 Iowa City 8.8 3.00 TC 5.0 20100 (same day) 

2-26-13 Raleigh 8.8 2.16 TC 2.0 290.9 24

3-7-13 San Diego 10.0 2.09 TC 5.2 36540 48

3-8-13 Palm Harbor 8.8 2.22 TC 4.7 48840 48

3-9-13 Palm Harbor 8.8 2.09 EC 4.8 6488 24

3-9-13 San Diego 10.0 2.09 EC 4.3 6488 24

3-9-13 Pennridge 6.3 2.04 EC 4.1 4106 24

3-10-13 Pennridge 8.8 2.20 TC 4.3 27230 48

3-10-13 Las Cruces 11.3 2.25 TC 9.2 51720 48

3-14-13 Penn Yann 8.8 2.30 TC 5.0 68670 48

3-14-13 Iowa City 3.8 2.19 EC 4.1 644 24

3-16-13 Denton 7.5 2.15 EC 4.9 1396 24

3-21-13

South 

Burlington

10.0

2.37 TC 5.0 17329 48

3-21-13 Valley Forge 7.5 2.73 TC 5.0 30760 48

4-10-13 San Diego 8.8 2.14 EC 1.4 2382 48

4-10-13 Palm Harbor 8.8 2.14 EC 1.7 6488 48

4-10-13 Las Cruces 8.8 2.05 EC 1.5 6131 48

4-12-13 Iowa City 8.8 2.88 EC 1.8 2359 48

4-15-13 Valley Forge 12.5 2.29 EC 1.0 2613 48

4-15-13 Valley Forge 8.8 2.29 EC 1.5 2613 48

4-20-13

Downer’s 

Grove

3.8

2.02 EC 2.0 209.8 24

4-21-13

South 

Burlington

8.8

3.16 TC 3.4

19863 48

4-21-13 Denton 12.5 2.44 TC 3.5 19180 48

4-21-13 San Diego 12.5 3.06 TC 4.2 48840 48

4-25-13 Palm Harbor 12.5 3.41 TC 4.0 34480 48
ENDETEC Method - ATP Case D11-0005 

12

5. Results

The results of the side by side comparison for each sample run are shown in 

Appendix C, Tables C1-C31. 

Table 6. Number of samples found to contain confirmed total coliforms by 

the ENDETECTM method and SM9221B and Chi-squared values

ENDETECTM method 

(Positive Results)

ENDETECTM method 

(Negative Results) SM 9221B 

Chi 

Squared

pvalue

Site

Presum

+

True 

+

False 

+

Presum 

-

True 

-

False 

- + -

Chattanooga, 

TN 15 13 2 5 1 4 10 10 0.92 0.34

Iowa City, 

IA 9 9 0 11 11 0 7 13 0.42 0.52

Raleigh, 

NC 17 17 0 3 3 0 15 5 0.63 0.43

Pennridge, 

PA 20 20 0 0 0 0 14 6 7.06 <0.01

Las Cruces, 

NM 20 20 0 0 0 0 12 8 10 <0.01

Palm Harbor, 

FL 20 20 0 0 0 0 12 8 10 <0.01

San Diego, 

CA 16 16 0 4 0 4 11 9 2.85 0.09

Penn Yann, 

NY 4 4 0 16 6 10 8 12 1.91 0.17

S.Burlington, 

VT 19 19 0 1 1 0 9 11 11.91 <0.01

Valley Forge, 

PA 20 20 0 0 0 0 7 13 19.26 <0.01

Total 160 158 2 40 22 18 105 95

% of SM 

9221B

152

%

100

%

Additive Chi 

squared 64.94 <0.01

The term “presumptive” (abbreviated as “Presum” in Table 6 above) indicates 

those samples that gave a positive result in the test but that may or may not 

have confirmed using subsequent phenotypic tests.

It is clear that the ENDETECTM medium, which contains components designed 

to recover injured target organisms, detected total coliforms in far more 

sample replicates than the reference procedure. There was only one sample 

where LTB recovered a greater number of positive replicates than ENDETEC 

for total coliforms. The data were analyzed by Chi Squared statistics both 

independently and collectively. 
ENDETEC Method - ATP Case D11-0005 

13

Determination of sensitivity and specificity, false positive and false negative 

results for total coliforms

Table 6 also shows the number of true and false positive samples and the 

number of true and false negative samples for total coliforms using the 

ENDETECTM system. These data were obtained during the side by side 

comparison part of the study and reflect only the ENDETECTM negatives 

obtained during this phase.

Sensitivity= [TP/(TP+ FN)] * 100%

Specificity= [TN/(TN+FP)] * 100%

False + Rate = 1 - Specificity

False - Rate = 1 - Sensitivity

TP= true positives

TN= true negative

FP= false positives

FN= false negatives

Thus the sensitivity of the ENDETECTM method for total coliforms is 

(158/(158+18))*100 = 89.8%

The specificity of the ENDETECTM method for total coliforms is 

(22/(22+2))*100 = 91.7%

Based on the small number of negative samples in Table 6 above, by 

calculation False Positive Rate is 8.3% and False Negative Rate is 

10.2%
ENDETEC Method - ATP Case D11-0005 

14

Table 7. The number of true and false positive Total Coliform results 

obtained with the ENDETECTM method from additional samples run purely 

for negatives

Positives (Presumptive) Negatives (Presumptive)

Site True + False + True - False -

San Diego, CA 5 (5) 0 15 (15) 0

Denton, TX 6 (6) 0 14 (14) 0

South Burlington, VT 11 (12) 1 8 (8) 0

Palm Harbor, FL 5 (5) 0 15 (15) 0

Las Cruces, NM 6 (6) 0 14 (14) 0

Total 33 (34) 1 66 (66) 0

Using the data for the additional samples run to generate more ENDETECTM 

negative samples:

By calculation False Positive Rate is 1.5% and False Negative Rate is 

0%

The sensitivity of the ENDETECTM method for total coliforms is 

(33/(33+0))*100 = 100%

 

The specificity of the ENDETECTM method for total coliforms is 

(66/(66+1))*98.5 = 98.5%

Table 8. Combined summary of total coliform data from the side by side 

comparison and from the additional samples run to obtain additional

negatives

True Positive False positive True Negative False Negative

191 3 88 18

Thus the sensitivity of the ENDETECTM method for total coliforms is 

(191/(191+18))*100 = 91.4%

 

The specificity of the ENDETECTM method for total coliforms is 

(88/(88+3))*100 = 96.7%

Based on all samples run during this study for the detection of total 

coliforms, by calculation False Positive Rate is 3.3% and False Negative 

Rate is 8.6%
ENDETEC Method - ATP Case D11-0005 

15

Determination of sensitivity and specificity, false positive and false negative 

results for E.coli

Table 9. Number of samples (out of twenty replicates) found to contain 

confirmed E. coli by the ENDETECTM method and SM9221B/F and Chisquared values 

ENDETECTM method 

(Positive Results)

ENDETECTM method 

(Negative Results) SM 9221B 

Chi 

Squared

pvalue

Site

Presum

+

True 

+

False 

+

Presum 

-

True 

-

False 

- + -

South Cross 

Bayou, FL 16 16 0 4 3 1 9 11 5.23 0.02

S.Burlington, 

VT 18 16 2 2 0 2 12 8 1.90 0.17

Las Cruces, 

NM 16 16 0 4 0 4 7 13 8.23 0.01

Pennridge, 

PA 11 11 0 9 8 1 8 12 0.90 0.34

Palm Harbor, 

FL 15 12 3 5 1 4 12 8 0.00 1.00

San Diego, 

CA 18 17 1 2 1 1 6 14 12.38 <0.01

Iowa City, 

IA 17 17 0 3 1 2 9 11 7.03 0.01

Denton, 

TX 20 20 0 0 0 0 12 8 10.00 <0.01

Downers 

Grove, IL 18 18 0 2 2 0 6 14 15.00 <0.01

Valley Forge, 

PA 14 14 0 6 6 0 8 12 3.64 0.06

Total 163 157 6 37 22 15 89 111

% of SM 

9221B

176

%

100

%

Additive Chi 

squared 64.31 <0.01

Again, the recovery of E. coli using the ENDETECTM method was significantly 

higher than with SM 9221B (176%). Recovery by ENDETECTM was greater than 

or equal to LTB for all samples.

Table 9 also shows the number of true and false positive samples and the 

number of true and false negative samples for E.coli using the ENDETECTM 

system. These data were obtained during the side by side comparison part of 

the study and reflect only the ENDETECTM negatives obtained during this 

phase.
ENDETEC Method - ATP Case D11-0005 

16

The sensitivity of the ENDETECTM method for E. coli is

(157/(157+15))*100 = 90.8%

The specificity of the ENDETECTM method for E. coli (22/(22+6))*100 = 

78.6%

Based on the small number of negative data in Table 7 above, by 

calculation, the False Positive Rate is 21.4% and the False Negative 

Rate is 9.2%.

Table 10. The number of true and false positive E. coli results obtained with 

the ENDETECTM method from additional samples run purely for negatives

Positives Negatives

Site True + False + True - False -

Las Cruces 5 0 15 0

Palm Harbor, FL 5 0 13 2

Iowa City 5 3 8 4

Valley Forge 5 2 11 2

Valley Forge 8 1 7 4

San Diego 6 0 10 4

Total 34 6 64 16

Based on the data for the additional samples run to generate 

additional ENDETECTM negative samples:

Thus the sensitivity of the ENDETECTM method for E. coli is 

(34/(34+16))*100 = 68%

 

The specificity of the ENDETECTM method for E. coli is (64/(64+6))*100 

= 91.4%

Based on the number of negative samples in Table 10 above, by 

calculation the False Positive Rate is 8.6% and the False Negative Rate 

is 32.0%
ENDETEC Method - ATP Case D11-0005 

17

Table 11. Combined summary of E. coli data from the side by side 

comparison and from the additional samples run to obtain additional

negatives

True Positive False positive True Negative False Negative

191 12 86 31

Combining the data from both sets of samples (those used for the side by 

side and those used to generate additional negative samples):

The sensitivity of the ENDETECTM method for E. coli is 

(191/(191+31))*100 = 86.0%

 

The specificity of the ENDETECTM method for E. coli is 

(86/(86+12))*100 = 87.8%

Using all samples run in the study for the detection of E. coli, by 

calculation the False Positive Rate is 12.2% and False Negative Rate is 

14.0% 

Data interpretation

Statistical analysis of the data shows that the ENDETECTM method recovers 

significantly more total coliforms and E. coli than the reference procedure 

even though the sensitivity of the method, as calculated, is 91.4% for total 

coliforms and 86.0% for E. coli. The ENDETECTM method is composed of a 

culture medium together with an incubation/optical detection system. The 

culture medium is designed to be extremely sensitive, particularly with 

regard to the recovery of sub-lethally damaged cells. 

Thus, the medium will recover many more target cells than the reference 

procedure, although some of them may have an extended lag phase and may 

not always be detected by the detection system. However, when 

subcultured into confirmation media, they are afforded a longer incubation 

period to express their phenotypic traits and, hence, will “confirm”. 

The ENDETECTM method gave a positive result (for both total coliforms and E. 

coli) from greater than 50% more replicates than the reference method. This 

is due to the improved ability of the medium to resuscitate and recover 

injured organisms.

With regard to the specificity results for total coliforms, it was 96.7% with 

only three false positive samples being detected. These “false positive” 

results were due to total coliform bacteria that were β-galactosidase positive 
ENDETEC Method - ATP Case D11-0005 

18

but did not ferment lactose within 48 h. For E. coli, the specificity as 

calculated was 86.7% with “false positive” samples being recorded in thirteen

samples. This lower value for specificity is partly a function of the low 

number of total negative samples (i.e. the high sensitivity reflected by the 

ENDETECTM medium) in this study. Furthermore, of the thirteen samples that 

were recorded as being false positive (i.e. they failed to produce fluorescence 

in EC-MUG) all were shown to cleave MUG resulting in fluorescence in other 

media and were identified as E. coli using a commercial identification system.

A positive control for total coliforms from the run set up to obtain additional

coliform negatives from Denton, TX did not confirm in BGLB. The sample 

gave a positive signal in ENDETECTM and produced acid and gas in LTB. 

However, the BGLB result was negative. It is likely that this single result was 

an error by the analyst (ie. the BGLB tube not being inoculated.)

The sensitivity for total coliforms was determined to be 91.4% and for E. coli

85.6%. These sensitivity levels can be explained by the medium design. The 

growth medium itself is designed to recover injured cells and it does this 

extremely well. However, because of the extended lag phase associated with 

the recovery of injured organisms, insufficient cleavage of the substrate 

occurred to facilitate detection by the instrument. Nonetheless, the 

sensitivity of the ENDETECTM method was significantly greater than that of the 

reference method as indicated by the substantially higher recovery of both 

groups of target organisms.
ENDETEC Method - ATP Case D11-0005 

19

Conclusions

The results presented here have demonstrated that the ENDETECTM method 

has greater sensitivity than the reference procedure for the defined target 

organisms and has comparable specificity for both total coliforms and E. coli.

References

1. EPA Microbiological Alternate Test Procedure (ATP) Protocol for 

Drinking Water, Ambient Water, Wastewater and Sewage Sludge 

Monitoring Methods USEPA, September 2010 Version EPA-821-B-10-

001.

2. APHA. 2005. Standard Methods for Examination of Water and Wastewater. 21th

Edition. American Public Health Association. 1015 15th St, NW, Washington, DC 20005

3. USEPA, 2005, Manual for the Certification of Laboratories Analyzing Drinking Water: 

Criteria and Procedures Quality Assurance, 5th Edition, EPA 815-R-05-004
ENDETEC Method - ATP Case D11-0005 

20

Appendix A – Method Description

The document entitled “ENDETECTM Method for Determination of Total 

Coliform and E. coli in Drinking Water Samples” Version 1.2 is incorporated 

herein in its entirety by reference.
ENDETEC Method - ATP Case D11-0005 

21

Appendix B - Approved Study Plan

The document entitled “Approved Study Plan: ATP D11-0005: ENDETECTM 

Method for Determination of Total Coliform and E. coli in Drinking Water 

Samples”, Version 1.0, as approved by the US EPA on December 5, 2012 is 

incorporated herein in its entirety by reference.
ENDETEC Method - ATP Case D11-0005 

22

Appendix C. Supporting Data: the confirmation results from the ENDETECTM

method

Table C1. Total Coliform Results from Chattanooga, TN Log Reduction Value (LRV) = 

2.37

Unit Chamber Site

ECMUG LTB BGLB TC TTD EC TTD

65 1 Chattanooga, TN N GA P Absent Absent

65 2 Chattanooga, TN N GA P 15.28 Absent

65 3 Chattanooga, TN N A N 14.53 Absent

65 4 Chattanooga, TN N GA P 16.07 Absent

65 5 Chattanooga, TN gF GA N 15.14 15.01

65 6 Chattanooga, TN G GA P 14.23 Absent

65 7 Chattanooga, TN GF GA P 16.06 16.68

65 8 Chattanooga, TN G GA P 17.28 Absent

65 9 Chattanooga, TN N G P Absent Absent

65 10 Chattanooga, TN gF GA P 14.77 14.86

65 11 Chattanooga, TN N GA P Absent Absent

65 12 Chattanooga, TN G GA P 16.42 Absent

65 13 Chattanooga, TN N GA P 16.27 Absent

65 14 Chattanooga, TN G G N Absent Absent

65 15 Chattanooga, TN N GA P 16.52 Absent

65 16 ODW Blank N N N Absent Absent

66 6 Chattanooga, TN N GA P 16.93 Absent

66 7 Chattanooga, TN N GA P 17 Absent

66 8 Chattanooga, TN G GA P 15.85 Absent

66 9 Chattanooga, TN N GA P Absent Absent

66 10 Chattanooga, TN N GA P 17.1 Absent

66 11 Pos TC G G P 10.9 Absent

66 12 Neg TC N N N Absent Absent

66 13 Pos EC GF GA P 11.53 11.54

66 14 Neg EC N N N 17.57 Absent

66 15 Empty Absent Absent

66 16 SDW N N N Absent Absent

Total Positive 3 20 17 15 2
ENDETEC Method - ATP Case D11-0005 

23

Table C2. Total Coliform Results from Iowa City, IA Log Reduction Value (LRV) = 3.0

Unit Chamber Site

ECMUG LTB BGLB TC TTD EC TTD

65 1 Iowa City, IA N N N Absent Absent

65 2 Iowa City, IA N N N Absent Absent

65 3 Iowa City, IA N G P 16.13 Absent

65 4 Iowa City, IA N N N Absent Absent

65 5 Iowa City, IA N N N Absent Absent

65 6 Iowa City, IA N G P 16.34 Absent

65 7 Iowa City, IA N G P 16.51 Absent

65 8 Iowa City, IA N N N Absent Absent

65 9 Iowa City, IA N N N Absent Absent

65 10 Iowa City, IA N N N Absent Absent

65 11 Iowa City, IA N N N Absent Absent

65 12 Iowa City, IA N N N Absent Absent

65 13 Iowa City, IA N N N Absent Absent

65 14 Iowa City, IA N G P 15.86 Absent

65 15 Iowa City, IA N G P 16.43 Absent

65 16 ODW Blank N N N 16.71 Absent

66 6 Iowa City, IA N N N Absent Absent

66 7 Iowa City, IA N G P 17.32 15.07

66 8 Iowa City, IA N G P 16.7 Absent

66 9 Iowa City, IA N G P 16.98 15.38

66 10 Iowa City, IA N G P 16.23 14.89

66 11 Pos TC G G P 14.18 Absent

66 12 Neg TC N G N Absent Absent

66 13 Pos TC GF GA P 11.91 11.63

66 14 Neg EC N N N Absent Absent

66 15 Empty Absent Absent

66 16 SDW N N N Absent Absent

Total Samples Positive 0 9 9 9 3
ENDETEC Method - ATP Case D11-0005 

24

Table C3. Total Coliform Results from Raleigh, NC Log Reduction Value (LRV) = 2.16

Unit Chamber Site

ECMUG LTB BGLB TC TTD EC TTD

65 1 Raleigh, NC N GA P 15.84 Absent

65 2 Raleigh, NC N GA P 15.63 Absent

65 3 Raleigh, NC GF GA P 12.79 12.62

65 4 Raleigh, NC N N N Absent Absent

65 5 Raleigh, NC N GA P 16.46 Absent

65 6 Raleigh, NC N N N Absent Absent

65 7 Raleigh, NC N GA P 16.66 Absent

65 8 Raleigh, NC N GA P 15.64 Absent

65 9 Raleigh, NC N GA P 16.52 Absent

65 10 Raleigh, NC N N N Absent Absent

65 11 Raleigh, NC N GA P 15.64 Absent

65 12 Raleigh, NC N GA P 15.22 Absent

65 13 Raleigh, NC N GA P 16.64 Absent

65 14 Raleigh, NC N GA P 16.19 Absent

65 15 Raleigh, NC GF GA P 13.28 13.03

65 16 ODW Blank N N N Absent Absent

100 6 Raleigh, NC GF GA P 12.82 12.46

100 7 Raleigh, NC N GA P 16.13 Absent

100 8 Raleigh, NC GF GA P 12.35 11.92

100 9 Raleigh, NC GF GA P 12.69 12.43

100 10 Raleigh, NC GF GA P 11.6 11.18

100 11 Pos TC N (g) G P 14.46 Absent

100 12 Neg TC N N N Absent Absent

100 13 Pos EC GF GA P 13.35 12.84

100 14 Neg EC N N N Absent Absent

100 15 SDW N N N Absent Absent

100 16 ODW Blank N N N Absent Absent

Total Positive 6 17 17 17 6
ENDETEC Method - ATP Case D11-0005 

25

Table C4. Total Coliform Results from Pennridge, PA Log Reduction Value (LRV) = 

2.25

Unit Chamber Site

ECMUG LTB BGLB TC TTD EC TTD

64 1 Pennridge, PA N GA P 14.26 Absent

64 2 Pennridge, PA N GA P 14.17 Absent

64 3 Pennridge, PA N GA P 14.01 Absent

64 4 Pennridge, PA N GA P 13.83 Absent

64 5 Pennridge, PA N GA P 14.29 Absent

64 6 Pennridge, PA N GA P 14.1 Absent

64 7 Pennridge, PA N GA P 14.34 Absent

64 8 Pennridge, PA N GA P 14.79 Absent

64 9 Pennridge, PA N GA P 14.6 Absent

64 10 Pennridge, PA N GA P 13.65 Absent

64 11 Pennridge, PA N GA P 13.72 Absent

64 12 Pennridge, PA N GA P 14.73 Absent

64 13 Pennridge, PA N GA P 14.21 Absent

64 14 Pennridge, PA N GA P 14.07 Absent

64 15 Pennridge, PA N GA P 14.01 Absent

64 16 ODW BLANK N N N Absent Absent

136 1 Pennridge, PA N GA P 14.21 Absent

136 2 Pennridge, PA N GA P 14.22 Absent

136 3 Pennridge, PA N GA P 14.22 Absent

136 4 Pennridge, PA N GA P 14.66 Absent

136 5 Pennridge, PA N GA P 14.04 15.11

136 16 ODW BLANK N N N Absent Absent

141 6 Pos TC N G P 14.29 Absent

141 7 Neg TC N N N Absent Absent

141 8 Pos EC GF GA P 12.65 12.23

141 9 Neg EC N N N 16.86 Absent

141 10 SDW N N N Absent Absent

141 11 ODW N N N Absent Absent

Total Positive 0 20 20 20 1
ENDETEC Method - ATP Case D11-0005 

26

Table C5. Total Coliform Results from Las Cruces, NM Log Reduction Value (LRV) = 

2.25

Unit Chamber Site

ECMUG LTB BGLB TC TTD EC TTD

65 1 Las Cruces, NM N GA P 12.97 Absent

65 2 Las Cruces, NM N GA P 12.8 Absent

65 3 Las Cruces, NM N GA P 13.42 Absent

65 4 Las Cruces, NM N GA P 13.34 Absent

65 5 Las Cruces, NM N GA P 13.18 Absent

65 6 Las Cruces, NM N GA P 12.53 Absent

65 7 Las Cruces, NM N GA P 13.33 Absent

65 8 Las Cruces, NM N GA P 13.44 Absent

65 9 Las Cruces, NM N GA P 13.61 Absent

65 10 Las Cruces, NM N GA P 13.62 Absent

65 11 Las Cruces, NM N GA P 13.62 Absent

65 12 Las Cruces, NM N GA P 13.51 Absent

65 13 Las Cruces, NM N GA P 13.51 Absent

65 14 Las Cruces, NM N GA P 13.51 Absent

65 15 Las Cruces, NM N GA P 14.09 Absent

65 16 ODW BLANK N N N Absent Absent

136 6 Las Cruces, NM N GA P 13.34 Absent

136 7 Las Cruces, NM N GA P 13.88 Absent

136 8 Las Cruces, NM N GA P 13.52 Absent

136 9 Las Cruces, NM N GA P 13.87 Absent

136 10 Las Cruces, NM N GA P 13.37 Absent

136 16 ODW BLANK N N N Absent Absent

141 6 Pos TC N G P 14.29 Absent

141 7 Neg TC N N N Absent Absent

141 8 Pos EC GF GA P 12.65 12.23

141 9 Neg EC N N N 16.86 Absent

141 10 SDW N N N Absent Absent

141 11 ODW N N N Absent Absent

Total Positive 0 20 20 20 0
ENDETEC Method - ATP Case D11-0005 

27

Table C6. Total Coliform Results from Palm Harbor, FL Log Reduction Value (LRV) = 

2.22

Unit Chamber Site

ECMUG LTB BGLB TC TTD EC TTD

66 1 Palm Harbor, FL N GA P 14.31 Absent

66 2 Palm Harbor, FL N GA P 15.98 Absent

66 3 Palm Harbor, FL N GA P 13.97 Absent

66 4 Palm Harbor, FL N GA P 15.39 Absent

66 5 Palm Harbor, FL N GA P 14.19 Absent

66 6 Palm Harbor, FL N GA P 14.18 Absent

66 7 Palm Harbor, FL N GA P 14.53 Absent

66 8 Palm Harbor, FL N GA P 13.76 Absent

66 9 Palm Harbor, FL N GA P 14.22 Absent

66 10 Palm Harbor, FL N GA P 13.61 Absent

66 11 Palm Harbor, FL N GA P 14.17 Absent

66 12 Palm Harbor, FL N GA P 14.72 Absent

66 13 Palm Harbor, FL N GA P 14.5 Absent

66 14 Palm Harbor, FL N GA P 15.51 Absent

66 15 Palm Harbor, FL N GA P 13.73 Absent

66 16 ODW BLANK N N N Absent Absent

136 11 Palm Harbor, FL N GA P 13.75 Absent

136 12 Palm Harbor, FL N GA P 15.74 15.88

136 13 Palm Harbor, FL N GA P 14.36 Absent

136 14 Palm Harbor, FL N GA P 14.99 Absent

136 15 Palm Harbor, FL N GA P 15.5 Absent

136 16 ODW BLANK N N N Absent Absent

141 6 Pos TC N G P 14.29 Absent

141 7 Neg TC N N N Absent Absent

141 8 Pos EC GF GA P 12.65 12.23

141 9 Neg EC N N N 16.86 Absent

141 10 SDW N N N Absent Absent

141 11 ODW N N N Absent Absent

Total Positive 0 20 20 20 1
ENDETEC Method - ATP Case D11-0005 

28

Table C7. Total Coliform Results from San Diego, CA Log Reduction Value (LRV) = 

3.06

Unit Chamber Site

ECMUG LTB BGLB TC TTD EC TTD

100 1 San Diego, CA N GA P Absent Absent

100 2 San Diego, CA N G P 15.2 Absent

100 3 San Diego, CA N GA P 15.2 Absent

100 4 San Diego, CA g GA P Absent Absent

100 5 San Diego, CA N GA P 14.34 Absent

100 6 San Diego, CA N G P Absent Absent

100 7 San Diego, CA N GA P 14.61 Absent

100 8 San Diego, CA N A P 14.14 Absent

100 9 San Diego, CA N GA P 14.72 Absent

100 10 San Diego, CA N GA P 14.93 Absent

100 11 San Diego, CA N GA P 14.55 Absent

100 12 San Diego, CA N GA P Absent Absent

100 13 San Diego, CA N GA P 14.13 Absent

100 14 San Diego, CA N GA P 14.57 Absent

100 15 San Diego, CA N GA P 14.31 Absent

100 16 ODW Blank N N N Absent Absent

141 1 San Diego, CA N GA P 14.35 15.5

141 2 San Diego, CA G G P 14.32 Absent

141 3 San Diego, CA N GA P 14.88 Absent

141 4 San Diego, CA N GA P 14.86 Absent

141 5 San Diego, CA N N P 14.64 Absent

141 6 Pos TC N G P 14.29 Absent

141 7 Neg TC N N N Absent Absent

141 8 Pos EC GF GA P 12.65 12.23

141 9 Neg EC N N N 16.86 Absent

141 10 SDW N N N Absent Absent

141 11 ODW N N N Absent Absent

Total Positive 0 19 20 16 1
ENDETEC Method - ATP Case D11-0005 

29

Table C8. Total Coliform Results from Penn Yann, NY Log Reduction Value (LRV) = 

2.30

Unit Chamber Site

ECMUG LTB BGLB TC TTD EC TTD

65 1 Penn Yann, NY N GA P Absent Absent

65 2 Penn Yann, NY Fg GA P Absent Absent

65 3 Penn Yann, NY N GA P Absent Absent

65 4 Penn Yann, NY N GA P Absent Absent

65 5 Penn Yann, NY N g N Absent Absent

65 6 Penn Yann, NY N GA P 17.37 Absent

65 7 Penn Yann, NY N g N Absent Absent

65 8 Penn Yann, NY N GA P Absent Absent

65 9 Penn Yann, NY N G P 16.11 Absent

65 10 Penn Yann, NY N g N Absent Absent

65 11 Penn Yann, NY N G P Absent Absent

65 12 Penn Yann, NY N GA P Absent Absent

65 13 Penn Yann, NY N GA P 17.01 Absent

65 14 Penn Yann, NY N g N Absent Absent

65 15 Penn Yann, NY N g N Absent Absent

65 16 ODW Blank N N N Absent Absent

136 6 Penn Yann, NY N GA P Absent Absent

136 7 Penn Yann, NY N GA P 17.54 Absent

136 8 Penn Yann, NY N GA P Absent Absent

136 9 Penn Yann, NY N g N Absent Absent

136 10 Penn Yann, NY N GA P Absent Absent

136 16 ODW BLANK N N N Absent Absent

141 1 Pos TC N G P 14.38 Absent

141 2 Neg TC N N N Absent Absent

141 3 Pos EC GF GA P 13.43 12.84

141 4 Neg EC N N N Absent Absent

141 5 SDW N N N Absent Absent

Total Positive 1 14 14 4 0
ENDETEC Method - ATP Case D11-0005 

30

Table C9. Total Coliform Results from South Burlington, VT Log Reduction Value 

(LRV) = 2.37

Unit Chamber Site

ECMUG LTB BGLB TC TTD EC TTD

64 1 S. Burlington, VT N GA P 14.38 Absent

64 2 S. Burlington, VT N GA P 14.42 Absent

64 3 S. Burlington, VT N G P 14 Absent

64 4 S. Burlington, VT N GA P 14.04 Absent

64 5 S. Burlington, VT N N N Absent Absent

64 6 S. Burlington, VT N GA P 15.26 Absent

64 7 S. Burlington, VT N GA P 15 Absent

64 8 S. Burlington, VT N GA P 14.58 Absent

64 9 S. Burlington, VT N GA P 14.08 Absent

64 10 S. Burlington, VT N GA P 14.12 Absent

64 11 S. Burlington, VT N GA P 14.36 Absent

64 12 S. Burlington, VT N GA P 14.09 Absent

64 13 S. Burlington, VT N GA P 14.54 Absent

64 14 S. Burlington, VT Fg GA P 14.57 15.43

64 15 S. Burlington, VT N GA P 14.05 Absent

64 16 ODW Blank N N N Absent Absent

136 1 S. Burlington, VT N GA P 14.32 Absent

136 2 S. Burlington, VT N GA P 14.26 Absent

136 3 S. Burlington, VT N GA P 14.54 Absent

136 4 S. Burlington, VT N GA P 14.32 Absent

136 5 S. Burlington, VT N GA P 14.26 Absent

136 16 ODW Blank N N N Absent Absent

141 6 Pos TC N G P 14.17 Absent

141 7 Neg TC N N N Absent Absent

141 8 Pos EC GF GA P 13.18 12.65

141 9 Neg EC N N N Absent Absent

141 10 SDW N N N Absent Absent

Total Positive 1 19 19 19 1
ENDETEC Method - ATP Case D11-0005 

31

Table C10. Total Coliform Results from Valley Forge, PA Log Reduction Value (LRV) 

= 2.73

Unit Chamber Site

ECMUG LTB BGLB TC TTD EC TTD

100 1 Valley Forge N GA P 14.46 Absent

100 2 Valley Forge N GA P 14.67 Absent

100 3 Valley Forge Fg GA P 14.51 Absent

100 4 Valley Forge N GA P 15.02 Absent

100 5 Valley Forge N GA P 14.35 Absent

100 6 Valley Forge FG GA P 16.97 Absent

100 7 Valley Forge FG GA P 14.4 Absent

100 8 Valley Forge N GA P 15.44 Absent

100 9 Valley Forge N GA P 14.7 Absent

100 10 Valley Forge Fg GA P 14.74 Absent

100 11 Valley Forge N GA P 14.22 Absent

100 12 Valley Forge Fg GA P 14.27 15.72

100 13 Valley Forge N GA P 14.59 Absent

100 14 Valley Forge Fg GA P 14.58 15.11

100 15 Valley Forge Fg GA P 14.53 14.19

100 16 ODW Blank N N N Absent Absent

141 1 Valley Forge FG GA P 15.13 Absent

141 2 Valley Forge N GA P 14.5 Absent

141 3 Valley Forge N GA P 14.39 Absent

141 4 Valley Forge N GA P 14.29 Absent

141 5 Valley Forge FG GA P 14.05 14.32

141 6 Pos TC N G P 14.17 Absent

141 7 Neg TC N N N Absent Absent

141 8 Pos EC GF GA P 13.18 12.65

141 9 Neg EC N N N Absent Absent

141 10 SDW N N N Absent Absent

141 11 ODW Blank N N N Absent Absent

Total Positive 9 20 20 20 4
ENDETEC Method - ATP Case D11-0005 

32

Table C11. E. coli Results from South Cross Bayou, FL Log Reduction Value (LRV) = 

2.27

Unit Chamber Site

ECMUG LTB BGLB TC TTD EC TTD

62 1 South Cross Bayou, FL Fg GA P 14.34 13.81

62 2 South Cross Bayou, FL g GA P 14.38 Absent

62 3 South Cross Bayou, FL FG GA P 14.2 14

62 4 South Cross Bayou, FL FG GA P 14.12 13.8

62 5 South Cross Bayou, FL FG GA P 14.04 13.96

62 6 South Cross Bayou, FL FG GA P 14.04 14.19

62 7 South Cross Bayou, FL Fg GA P 15.23 Absent

62 8 South Cross Bayou, FL Fg GA P 14.64 14.25

62 9 South Cross Bayou, FL Fg GA P 14.15 13.92

62 10 South Cross Bayou, FL FG GA P 13.92 13.37

62 11 South Cross Bayou, FL FG GA P 13.24 13

62 12 South Cross Bayou, FL Fg GA P 14.47 16.46

62 13 South Cross Bayou, FL FG GA P 14.19 13.68

62 14 South Cross Bayou, FL G GA P 14.62 Absent

62 15 South Cross Bayou, FL G GA P 13.74 Absent

62 16 ODW Blank N N N Absent Absent

64 1 South Cross Bayou, FL FG GA P 14.58 14.45

64 2 South Cross Bayou, FL FG GA P 14.67 14.25

64 3 South Cross Bayou, FL Fg GA P 14.35 14.18

64 4 South Cross Bayou, FL FG GA P 14.64 14.75

64 5 South Cross Bayou, FL Fg GA P 14.33 13.62

64 6 Pos TC N GA P 9.64 Absent

64 7 Neg TC N N N Absent Absent

64 8 Pos EC FG GA P 7.59 7.32

64 9 Neg EC N N N 14.78 Absent

64 10 SDW N N N Absent Absent

Total Positive 17 20 20 20 16
ENDETEC Method - ATP Case D11-0005 

33

Table C12. E. coli Results from South Burlington, VT Log Reduction Value (LRV) = 

2.25

Unit Chamber Site

ECMUG LTB BGLB TC TTD EC TTD

64 1 South Burlington, VT FG GA P 13.78 13.24

64 2 South Burlington, VT FG GA P 13.98 14.38

64 3 South Burlington, VT Fg GA P 13.76 14.01

64 4 South Burlington, VT FG GA P 14.01 16.12

64 5 South Burlington, VT Fg GA P 14.05 14.08

64 6 South Burlington, VT FG GA P 14.39 Absent

64 7 South Burlington, VT FG GA P 13.4 13.3

64 8 South Burlington, VT FG GA P 13.77 13.86

64 9 South Burlington, VT G GA P 14.32 16.69

64 10 South Burlington, VT FG GA P 14.11 13.83

64 11 South Burlington, VT FG GA P 14.52 Absent

64 12 South Burlington, VT FG GA P 14.01 14.84

64 13 South Burlington, VT FG GA P 14.35 17.69

64 14 South Burlington, VT Fg GA P 14.32 14.28

64 15 South Burlington, VT FG GA P 14.44 14.41

64 16 ODW Blank N N N Absent Absent

65 6 South Burlington, VT FG GA P 13.6 13.47

65 7 South Burlington, VT G GA P 13.49 16.97

65 8 South Burlington, VT FG GA P 13.68 13.41

65 9 South Burlington, VT FG GA P 14.12 14.06

65 10 South Burlington, VT Fg GA P 12.78 14.34

65 11 Pos TC g GA P 9.11 Absent

65 12 Neg TC g g g Absent Absent

65 13 Pos EC FG GA P 6.99 6.96

65 14 Neg EC N N N 14.57 Absent

65 16 ODW N N N Absent Absent

Total Samples Positive 18 20 20 20 18
ENDETEC Method - ATP Case D11-0005 

34

Table C13. E. coli Results from Las Cruces, NM Log Reduction Value (LRV) = 2.03

Unit Chamber Site

ECMUG LTB BGLB TC TTD EC TTD

64 1 Las Cruces, NM FG GA P 12.08 Absent

64 2 Las Cruces, NM FG GA P 12.4 12.92

64 3 Las Cruces, NM FG GA P 12.28 13

64 4 Las Cruces, NM FG GA P 12.41 Absent

64 5 Las Cruces, NM FG GA P 12.38 12.87

64 6 Las Cruces, NM FG GA P 12.35 15.85

64 7 Las Cruces, NM FG GA P 11.99 13.58

64 8 Las Cruces, NM FG GA P 12.54 15.79

64 9 Las Cruces, NM FG GA P 12.42 15.34

64 10 Las Cruces, NM FG GA P 12.39 15.03

64 11 Las Cruces, NM FG GA P 12.53 13.53

64 12 Las Cruces, NM FG GA P 12.48 Absent

64 13 Las Cruces, NM FG GA P 12.37 13.26

64 14 Las Cruces, NM FG GA P 12.27 16.28

64 15 Las Cruces, NM FG GA P 12.54 16.74

64 16 ODW Blank N N N Absent Absent

65 1 Las Cruces, NM FG GA P 11.91 13.97

65 2 Las Cruces, NM FG GA P 12.33 16.58

65 3 Las Cruces, NM FG GA P 12.06 14.25

65 4 Las Cruces, NM FG GA P 12.33 16.83

65 5 Las Cruces, NM FG GA P 12.1 Absent

65 6 Pos TC N (g) G P 8.47 Absent

65 7 Neg TC N N N Absent Absent

65 8 Pos EC GF GA P 10.67 10.65

65 9 Neg EC N N N 14 Absent

65 10 SDW N N N Absent Absent

Total Samples Positive 20 20 20 20 16
ENDETEC Method - ATP Case D11-0005 

35

Table C14. E. coli Results from Pennridge, PA Log Reduction Value (LRV) = 2.04

Unit Chamber Site

ECMUG LTB BGLB TC TTD EC TTD

64 1 Pennridge, PA Fg GA P 13.63 15.09

64 2 Pennridge, PA Fg GA P 13.53 15.79

64 3 Pennridge, PA Fg GA P 13.07 14.43

64 4 Pennridge, PA g GA P 13.67 Absent

64 5 Pennridge, PA Fg GA P 13.35 14.32

64 6 Pennridge, PA Fg GA P 14.03 17.75

64 7 Pennridge, PA FG GA P 13.77 13.64

64 8 Pennridge, PA N GA P 14.33 Absent

64 9 Pennridge, PA Fg GA P 13.75 15.26

64 10 Pennridge, PA g GA P 13.59 Absent

64 11 Pennridge, PA Fg GA P 14.44 Absent

64 12 Pennridge, PA Fg GA P 14.01 14.49

64 13 Pennridge, PA FG GA P 13.88 17.3

64 14 Pennridge, PA Fg GA P 14.02 16.34

64 15 Pennridge, PA N GA P 13.34 Absent

64 16 ODW Blank N N N Absent Absent

136 1 Pennridge, PA N GA P 14.03 Absent

136 2 Pennridge, PA N GA P 14.57 Absent

136 3 Pennridge, PA N GA P 13.51 Absent

136 4 Pennridge, PA g GA P 13.63 Absent

136 5 Pennridge, PA N GA P 13.45 17.14

136 16 ODW Blank N N N Absent Absent

141 6 Pos TC N(g) G P 14.15 Absent

141 7 Neg TC N N N Absent Absent

141 8 Pos EC GF GA P 13.08 12.65

141 9 Neg EC N N N Absent Absent

141 10 SDW N N N Absent Absent

Total Samples Positive 12 20 20 20 11
ENDETEC Method - ATP Case D11-0005 

36

Table C15. E. coli Results from Palm Harbor, FL Log Reduction Value (LRV) = 2.09

Unit Chamber Site

ECMUG LTB BGLB TC TTD EC TTD

65 1 Palm Harbor, FL G GA P 11.88 13.64

65 2 Palm Harbor, FL FG GA P 11.48 13.58

65 3 Palm Harbor, FL FG GA P 11.7 14.07

65 4 Palm Harbor, FL Fg GA P 12.51 12.97

65 5 Palm Harbor, FL FG GA P 12.14 14.73

65 6 Palm Harbor, FL Fg GA P 11.27 Absent

65 7 Palm Harbor, FL FG GA P 11.55 14.3

65 8 Palm Harbor, FL FG GA P 12.01 16.43

65 9 Palm Harbor, FL G GA P 11.76 17.75

65 10 Palm Harbor, FL G GA P 11.72 13.75

65 11 Palm Harbor, FL FG GA P 11.98 14.27

65 12 Palm Harbor, FL FG GA P 11.41 Absent

65 13 Palm Harbor, FL FG GA P 11.68 Absent

65 14 Palm Harbor, FL FG GA P 11.99 16

65 15 Palm Harbor, FL FG GA P 11.91 12.89

65 16 ODW Blank N N N Absent Absent

136 6 Palm Harbor, FL FG GA P 11.54 14.65

136 7 Palm Harbor, FL FG GA P 11.95 15.44

136 8 Palm Harbor, FL FG GA P 11.5 Absent

136 9 Palm Harbor, FL FG GA P 11.72 14.31

136 10 Palm Harbor, FL G GA P 12.05 Absent

136 16 ODW Blank N N N Absent Absent

141 6 Pos TC N(g) G P 14.15 Absent

141 7 Neg TC N N N Absent Absent

141 8 Pos EC GF GA P 13.08 12.65

141 9 Neg EC N N N Absent Absent

141 10 SDW N N N Absent Absent

Total Samples Positive 16 20 20 20 15
ENDETEC Method - ATP Case D11-0005 

37

Table C16. E. coli Results from San Diego, CA Log Reduction Value (LRV) = 2.09

Unit Chamber Site

ECMUG LTB BGLB TC TTD EC TTD

66 1 San Diego, CA Fg GA P 15.37 15.02

66 2 San Diego, CA Fg GA P 15.11 15.3

66 3 San Diego, CA Fg GA P 15.06 14.71

66 4 San Diego, CA Fg GA P 15.54 15.38

66 5 San Diego, CA Fg GA P 15.59 15.99

66 6 San Diego, CA G GA P 13.84 Absent

66 7 San Diego, CA G GA P 15.71 16.04

66 8 San Diego, CA Fg GA P 15.26 16.85

66 9 San Diego, CA FG GA P 15.12 15.07

66 10 San Diego, CA Fg GA P 15.1 14.83

66 11 San Diego, CA Fg GA P 15.46 16.05

66 12 San Diego, CA Fg GA P 15.15 15.19

66 13 San Diego, CA FG GA P 14.8 14.46

66 14 San Diego, CA FG GA P 15.7 15.78

66 15 San Diego, CA Fg GA P 15.85 16.15

66 16 ODW Blank N N N Absent Absent

136 11 San Diego, CA FG GA P 14.56 14.65

136 12 San Diego, CA Fg GA P 15.66 Absent

136 13 San Diego, CA Fg GA P 15.37 15.07

136 14 San Diego, CA FG GA P 15.31 14.96

136 15 San Diego, CA Fg GA P 16.1 17.32

136 16 ODW Blank N N N Absent Absent

141 6 Pos TC N(g) G P 14.15 Absent

141 7 Neg TC N N N Absent Absent

141 8 Pos EC GF GA P 13.08 12.65

141 9 Neg EC N N N Absent Absent

141 10 SDW N N N Absent Absent

Total Samples Positive 18 20 20 20 18
ENDETEC Method - ATP Case D11-0005 

38

Table C17. E. coli Results from Iowa City, IA Log Reduction Value (LRV) = 2.19

Unit Chamber Site

ECMUG LTB BGLB TC TTD EC TTD

66 1 Iowa City FG GA P 14.49 14.35

66 2 Iowa City FG GA P 14.91 14.87

66 3 Iowa City FG GA P 14.55 14.73

66 4 Iowa City FG GA P 14.7 Absent

66 5 Iowa City Fg GA P 14.19 14.44

66 6 Iowa City FG GA P 13.4 13.81

66 7 Iowa City Fg GA P 13.96 13.52

66 8 Iowa City Fg GA P 14.13 14.43

66 9 Iowa City FG GA P 14.72 14.54

66 10 Iowa City FG GA P 14.54 14.49

66 11 Iowa City FG GA P 14.27 14.73

66 12 Iowa City Fg GA P 13.97 13.71

66 13 Iowa City FG GA P 14.64 14.82

66 14 Iowa City Fg GA P 14.2 Absent

66 15 Iowa City FG GA P 14.29 14.23

66 16 ODW Blank N N N Absent Absent

136 11 Iowa City FG GA P 14.62 15.99

136 12 Iowa City FG GA P 13.75 14.13

136 13 Iowa City g GA P 13.82 Absent

136 14 Iowa City FG GA P 14.21 14.06

136 15 Iowa City FG GA P 14.33 14.27

136 16 ODW Blank N N N Absent Absent

141 1 Pos TC N G P 14.38 Absent

141 2 Neg TC N N N Absent Absent

141 3 Pos EC GF GA P 13.43 12.84

141 4 Neg EC N N N Absent Absent

141 5 SDW N N N Absent Absent

Total Samples Positive 19 20 20 20 17
ENDETEC Method - ATP Case D11-0005 

39

Table C18. E. coli Results from Denton, TX Log Reduction Value (LRV) = 2.15

Unit Chamber Site

ECMUG LTB BGLB TC TTD EC TTD

64 1 Denton, TX FG GA P 13.78 13.7

64 2 Denton, TX FG GA P 14.1 14.6

64 3 Denton, TX FG GA P 14.22 13.86

64 4 Denton, TX FG GA P 14.13 14.09

64 5 Denton, TX FG GA P 14.38 15.47

64 6 Denton, TX FG GA P 13.96 13.8

64 7 Denton, TX Fg GA P 14.68 14.52

64 8 Denton, TX Fg GA P 14.19 14.57

64 9 Denton, TX Fg GA P 14.43 14.65

64 10 Denton, TX Fg GA P 14.92 15.29

64 11 Denton, TX Fg GA P 14.09 15.08

64 12 Denton, TX FG GA P 14.53 14.11

64 13 Denton, TX Fg GA P 14.01 13.34

64 14 Denton, TX Fg GA P 14.16 14.15

64 15 Denton, TX Fg GA P 14.75 15.37

64 16 ODW Blank N N N Absent Absent

66 1 Denton, TX FG GA P 14.06 14.24

66 2 Denton, TX Fg GA P 14.11 14.51

66 3 Denton, TX FG GA P 13.89 13.83

66 4 Denton, TX Fg GA P 13.96 14.15

66 5 Denton, TX FG GA P 14.11 13.99

66 11 Pos TC N G P 14.68 Absent

66 12 Neg TC N N N Absent Absent

66 13 Pos EC GF GA P 12.95 12.61

66 14 Neg EC N N N Absent Absent

66 15 SDW N N N Absent Absent

66 16 ODW Blank N N N Absent Absent

Total Samples Positive 20 20 20 20 20
ENDETEC Method - ATP Case D11-0005 

40

Table C19. E. coli Results from Valley Forge, PA Log Reduction Value (LRV) = 2.29

Unit Chamber Site

ECMUG LTB BGLB TC TTD EC TTD

64 1 Valley Forge, PA N AG P 14.94 Absent

64 2 Valley Forge, PA FG AG P 12.69 12.23

64 3 Valley Forge, PA FG AG P 13.91 14.17

64 4 Valley Forge, PA FG AG P 12.45 11.95

64 5 Valley Forge, PA FG AG P 12.3 11.86

64 6 Valley Forge, PA FG AG P 12.94 12.65

64 7 Valley Forge, PA N AG P 15.31 Absent

64 8 Valley Forge, PA FG AG P 13.09 12.62

64 9 Valley Forge, PA FG AG P 12.29 12.51

64 10 Valley Forge, PA N AG P Absent Absent

64 11 Valley Forge, PA N AG P Absent Absent

64 12 Valley Forge, PA FG AG P 12.64 12.19

64 13 Valley Forge, PA N AG P Absent Absent

64 14 Valley Forge, PA FG AG P 12.7 12.92

64 15 Valley Forge, PA FG AG P 13.27 12.9

64 16 ODW N N N Absent Absent

101 6 Valley Forge, PA FG AG P 16.04 15.74

101 7 Valley Forge, PA N AG P 17.68 Absent

101 8 Valley Forge, PA FG AG P 17.19 17.03

101 9 Valley Forge, PA FG AG P 12.79 12.6

101 10 Valley Forge, PA FG AG P 13.81 13.51

101 16 ODW N N N Absent Absent

101 11 Pos TC N A P 16.49 Absent

101 12 Neg TC N N N Absent Absent

101 13 Pos EC FG AG P 12.54 12.29

101 14 Neg EC N N N Absent Absent

101 15 SDW N N N Absent Absent

Total Samples Positive 14 14
ENDETEC Method - ATP Case D11-0005 

41

Table C20. E. coli Results from Downers Grove, IL Log Reduction Value (LRV) = 2.02

Unit Chamber Site

ECMUG LTB BGLB TC TTD EC TTD

65 1 Downers Grove, IL FG AG P 13.2 12.83

65 2 Downers Grove, IL FG AG P 12.35 12.15

65 3 Downers Grove, IL FG AG P 12.14 11.8

65 4 Downers Grove, IL FG AG P 13.1 12.73

65 5 Downers Grove, IL FG AG P 12.38 12.56

65 6 Downers Grove, IL FG AG P 12.59 12.42

65 7 Downers Grove, IL FG AG P 12.24 17.64

65 8 Downers Grove, IL FG AG P 13.17 14.66

65 9 Downers Grove, IL FG AG P 12.47 12.25

65 10 Downers Grove, IL FG AG P 12.82 12.87

65 11 Downers Grove, IL FG AG P 12.14 11.81

65 12 Downers Grove, IL FG AG P 12.98 12.46

65 13 Downers Grove, IL N AG P 13.3 Absent

65 14 Downers Grove, IL FG AG P 12.55 12.25

65 15 Downers Grove, IL FG AG P 12.85 12.64

65 16 ODW N N N Absent Absent

101 11 Downers Grove, IL FG AG P 13.64 16.96

101 12 Downers Grove, IL N AG P 13.69 Absent

101 13 Downers Grove, IL FG AG P 12.8 12.53

101 14 Downers Grove, IL FG AG P 14.34 14.03

101 15 Downers Grove, IL FG AG P 11.92 12.65

101 16 ODW N N N Absent Absent

102 11 Pos TC N G P 14.24 Absent

102 12 Neg TC N N N Absent Absent

102 13 Pos EC FG AG P 8.92 8.75

102 14 Neg EC N G P 12.11 Absent

102 16 SDW N N N Absent Absent

Total Samples Positive 18 20 20 20 18
ENDETEC Method - ATP Case D11-0005 

42

Table C21.Total Coliform Results from San Diego, CA to obtain more results where 

ENDETEC was negative Log Reduction Value (LRV) = 3.06

Unit Chamber Site

ECMUG LTB BGLB TC TTD EC TTD

62 1 San Diego, CA N N N Absent Absent

62 2 San Diego, CA N N N Absent Absent

62 3 San Diego, CA N N N Absent Absent

62 4 San Diego, CA N N N Absent Absent

62 5 San Diego, CA N N N Absent Absent

62 6 San Diego, CA N N N Absent Absent

62 7 San Diego, CA N N N Absent Absent

62 8 San Diego, CA N GA P 16.18 Absent

62 9 San Diego, CA F GA P 16.18 17.45

62 10 San Diego, CA N GA P 16.83 Absent

62 11 San Diego, CA N N N Absent Absent

62 12 San Diego, CA N GA P 15.96 Absent

62 13 San Diego, CA N N N Absent Absent

62 14 San Diego, CA N N N Absent Absent

62 15 San Diego, CA N N N Absent Absent

62 16 ODW Blank N N N Absent Absent

136 1 San Diego, CA N N N Absent Absent

136 2 San Diego, CA N N N Absent Absent

136 3 San Diego, CA N N N Absent Absent

136 4 San Diego, CA N GA P 16.42 Absent

136 5 San Diego, CA N N N Absent Absent

136 16 ODW Blank N N N Absent Absent

141 6 Pos TC N G P 14.18 Absent

141 7 Neg TC N N N Absent Absent

141 8 Pos EC GF GA P 9.06 8.98

141 9 Neg EC N G P 13.56 Absent

141 10 SDW N N N Absent Absent

Total Samples Positive 1 5 5 5 1
ENDETEC Method - ATP Case D11-0005 

43

Table C22.Total Coliform Results from Denton, TX to obtain more results where 

ENDETEC was negative Log Reduction Value (LRV) = 2.44

Unit Chamber Site

ECMUG LTB BGLB TC TTD EC TTD

65 1 Denton, TX F AG AG 16.5 16.51

65 2 Denton, TX N N N Absent Absent

65 3 Denton, TX N AG AG 14.43 Absent

65 4 Denton, TX N N N Absent Absent

65 5 Denton, TX N N N Absent Absent

65 6 Denton, TX F AG AG 16.32 16.53

65 7 Denton, TX N N N Absent Absent

65 8 Denton, TX N N N Absent Absent

65 9 Denton, TX F AG AG 15.6 16.4

65 10 Denton, TX N AG AG 16.94 Absent

65 11 Denton, TX N N N Absent Absent

65 12 Denton, TX F AG AG 16.31 16.88

65 13 Denton, TX N N N Absent Absent

65 14 Denton, TX N N N Absent Absent

65 15 Denton, TX N N N Absent Absent

65 16 ODW Blank N N N Absent Absent

101 11 Denton, TX N N N Absent Absent

101 12 Denton, TX N AG N Absent Absent

101 13 Denton, TX N AG N Absent Absent

101 14 Denton, TX N N N Absent Absent

101 15 Denton, TX N N N Absent Absent

101 16 ODW Blank N N N Absent Absent

102 6 Pos TC N AG N 14.18 Absent

102 7 Neg TC N N N Absent Absent

102 8 Pos EC F AG AG 9.06 8.98

102 9 Neg EC N AG AG 13.56 Absent

102 10 SDW N N N Absent Absent

Total Samples Positive 4 8 6 6 4
ENDETEC Method - ATP Case D11-0005 

44

Table C23.Total Coliform Results from South Burlington, VT to obtain more results 

where ENDETEC was negative Log Reduction Value (LRV) = 3.16

Unit Chamber Site

ECMUG LTB BGLB TC TTD EC TTD

66 1 South Burlington, VT F AG AG 17.12 Absent

66 2 South Burlington, VT N N N Absent Absent

66 3 South Burlington, VT F AG AG 15.15 14.7

66 4 South Burlington, VT F AG AG 16.56 16.83

66 5 South Burlington, VT N AG AG 15.25 Absent

66 6 South Burlington, VT N AG AG 16.44 Absent

66 7 South Burlington, VT N AG A 17.41 Absent

66 8 South Burlington, VT N AG AG 15.27 Absent

66 9 South Burlington, VT N N N Absent Absent

66 10 South Burlington, VT N N N Absent Absent

66 11 South Burlington, VT F AG AG 13.05 12.78

66 12 South Burlington, VT N N N Absent Absent

66 13 South Burlington, VT N AG AG 15.97 Absent

66 14 South Burlington, VT N N N Absent Absent

66 15 South Burlington, VT N N N Absent Absent

66 16 ODW Blank N N N Absent Absent

141 1 South Burlington, VT F AG AG 13.79 13.69

141 2 South Burlington, VT N N N Absent Absent

141 3 South Burlington, VT N AG AG 15.75 Absent

141 4 South Burlington, VT N N N Absent Absent

141 5 South Burlington, VT N AG AG 16.66 Absent

141 6 Pos TC N A A 14.18 Absent

141 7 Neg TC N N N Absent Absent

141 8 Pos EC GF AG AG 9.06 8.98

141 9 Neg EC N AG AG 13.56 Absent

141 10 SDW N N N Absent Absent

141 11 ODW Blank N N N Absent Absent

Total Samples Positive 5 12 11 12 4
ENDETEC Method - ATP Case D11-0005 

45

Table C24.Total Coliform Results from Palm Harbor, FL to obtain more results 

where ENDETEC was negative Log Reduction Value (LRV) = 3.41

Unit Chamber Site

ECMUG LTB BGLB TC TTD EC TTD

62 1 Palm Harbor, FL N N N Absent Absent

62 2 Palm Harbor, FL N N N Absent Absent

62 3 Palm Harbor, FL N N N Absent Absent

62 4 Palm Harbor, FL N AG AG 15.76 Absent

62 5 Palm Harbor, FL N AG G 17.62 Absent

62 6 Palm Harbor, FL N N N Absent Absent

62 7 Palm Harbor, FL N AG G 17.3 Absent

62 8 Palm Harbor, FL N N N Absent Absent

62 9 Palm Harbor, FL N N N Absent Absent

62 10 Palm Harbor, FL N AG G 16.02 Absent

62 11 Palm Harbor, FL N N N Absent Absent

62 12 Palm Harbor, FL N N N Absent Absent

62 13 Palm Harbor, FL N N N Absent Absent

62 14 Palm Harbor, FL N N N Absent Absent

62 15 Palm Harbor, FL N N N Absent Absent

62 16 ODW N N N Absent Absent

64 1 Palm Harbor, FL N N N Absent Absent

64 2 Palm Harbor, FL N N N Absent Absent

64 3 Palm Harbor, FL N N N Absent Absent

64 4 Palm Harbor, FL N AG N Absent Absent

64 5 Palm Harbor, FL N AG G 15.78 Absent

64 6 Pos TC N G P 13.82 Absent

64 7 Neg TC N N N Absent Absent

64 8 Pos EC GF GA P 8.89 8.64

64 9 Neg EC N G P 15.88 Absent

64 10 SDW N N N Absent Absent

64 11 ODW Blank N N N Absent Absent

Total Samples Positive 0 6 5 5 0
ENDETEC Method - ATP Case D11-0005 

46

Table C25.E. coli Results from Las Cruces, NM to obtain more results where 

ENDETEC was negative Log Reduction Value (LRV) = 

Unit Chamber Site

ECMUG LTB BGLB TC TTD EC TTD

62 1 Las Cruces, NM N N N Absent Absent

62 2 Las Cruces, NM N N N Absent Absent

62 3 Las Cruces, NM N N N Absent Absent

62 4 Las Cruces, NM F GA P 12.63 12.3

62 5 Las Cruces, NM N N N Absent Absent

62 6 Las Cruces, NM N N N Absent Absent

62 7 Las Cruces, NM F GA P 13.15 12.85

62 8 Las Cruces, NM N N N Absent Absent

62 9 Las Cruces, NM N N N Absent Absent

62 10 Las Cruces, NM N GA P 15.34 Absent

62 11 Las Cruces, NM N N N Absent Absent

62 12 Las Cruces, NM N N N Absent Absent

62 13 Las Cruces, NM N N N Absent Absent

62 14 Las Cruces, NM N N N Absent Absent

62 15 Las Cruces, NM N N N Absent Absent

62 16 ODW Blank N N N Absent Absent

64 1 Las Cruces, NM F GA P 13.65 13.32

64 2 Las Cruces, NM N N N Absent Absent

64 3 Las Cruces, NM F GA P 13.08 12.65

64 4 Las Cruces, NM N N N Absent Absent

64 5 Las Cruces, NM F GA P 11.56 11.11

64 6 Pos TC N G P 13.43 Absent

64 7 Neg TC N N N Absent Absent

64 8 Pos EC GF GA P 12.2 11.83

64 9 Neg EC N G P 15.41 Absent

64 10 SDW N N N Absent Absent

64 11 ODW Blank N N N Absent Absent

Total Samples Positive 5 6 6 6 5
ENDETEC Method - ATP Case D11-0005 

47

Table C26. E. coli Results from Las Cruces, NM to obtain more results where 

ENDETEC was negative Log Reduction Value (LRV) = 

Unit Chamber Site

ECMUG LTB BGLB TC TTD EC TTD

62 1 Las Cruces, NM N N N Absent Absent

62 2 Las Cruces, NM N N N Absent Absent

62 3 Las Cruces, NM N N N Absent Absent

62 4 Las Cruces, NM F GA P 12.63 12.3

62 5 Las Cruces, NM N N N Absent Absent

62 6 Las Cruces, NM N N N Absent Absent

62 7 Las Cruces, NM F GA P 13.15 12.85

62 8 Las Cruces, NM N N N Absent Absent

62 9 Las Cruces, NM N N N Absent Absent

62 10 Las Cruces, NM N GA P 15.34 Absent

62 11 Las Cruces, NM N N N Absent Absent

62 12 Las Cruces, NM N N N Absent Absent

62 13 Las Cruces, NM N N N Absent Absent

62 14 Las Cruces, NM N N N Absent Absent

62 15 Las Cruces, NM N N N Absent Absent

62 16 ODW Blank N N N Absent Absent

64 1 Las Cruces, NM F GA P 13.65 13.32

64 2 Las Cruces, NM N N N Absent Absent

64 3 Las Cruces, NM F GA P 13.08 12.65

64 4 Las Cruces, NM N N N Absent Absent

64 5 Las Cruces, NM F GA P 11.56 11.11

64 6 Pos TC N G P 13.43 Absent

64 7 Neg TC N N N Absent Absent

64 8 Pos EC GF GA P 12.2 11.83

64 9 Neg EC N G P 15.41 Absent

64 10 SDW N N N Absent Absent

64 11 ODW Blank N N N Absent Absent

Total Samples Positive 5 6 6 6 5
ENDETEC Method - ATP Case D11-0005 

48

Table C27. E. coli Results from Palm Harbor, FL to obtain more results where 

ENDETEC was negative Log Reduction Value (LRV) = 2.14

Unit Chamber Site

ECMUG LTB BGLB TC TTD EC TTD

64 1 Palm Harbor, FL Fg GA P 13.38 14.1

64 2 Palm Harbor, FL Fg GA P 13.3 13.52

64 3 Palm Harbor, FL g GA P 12.75 Absent

64 4 Palm Harbor, FL G GA P 12.91 Absent

64 5 Palm Harbor, FL g GA P 13.59 Absent

64 6 Palm Harbor, FL g GA P 12.36 Absent

64 7 Palm Harbor, FL G GA P 13.34 Absent

64 8 Palm Harbor, FL g GA P 13.03 Absent

64 9 Palm Harbor, FL g GA P 13.9 Absent

64 10 Palm Harbor, FL g GA P 13.37 Absent

64 11 Palm Harbor, FL G GA P 13.73 Absent

64 12 Palm Harbor, FL g GA P 12.05 Absent

64 13 Palm Harbor, FL g GA P 13.73 Absent

64 14 Palm Harbor, FL FG GA P 13.52 16.84

64 15 Palm Harbor, FL g GA P 13.24 Absent

64 16 ODW Blank N N N Absent Absent

100 1 Palm Harbor, FL FG GA P 13.28 17.63

100 2 Palm Harbor, FL Fg GA P 13.3 Absent

100 3 Palm Harbor, FL FG GA P 13.49 Absent

100 4 Palm Harbor, FL Fg GA P 13.43 15.18

100 5 Palm Harbor, FL g GA P 13.49 Absent

100 16 ODW Blank N N N Absent Absent

136 1 Pos TC N G P 15.03 Absent

136 2 Neg TC N N N Absent Absent

136 3 Pos EC GF GA P 13.31 12.97

136 4 Neg EC N N N Absent Absent

136 5 SDW N N N Absent Absent

Total Samples Positive 7 20 20 20 5
ENDETEC Method - ATP Case D11-0005 

49

Table C28. E. coli Results from Iowa City, IA to obtain more results where ENDETEC 

was negative Log Reduction Value (LRV) = 2.88

Unit Chamber Site

ECMUG LTB BGLB TC TTD EC TTD

100 1 Iowa City N GA P 11.92 Absent

100 2 Iowa City F GA P 12.16 17.3

100 3 Iowa City N GA P 12.5 16.29

100 4 Iowa City N GA P 11.63 Absent

100 5 Iowa City N GA P 12.27 Absent

100 6 Iowa City F GA P 12.15 Absent

100 7 Iowa City F GA P 11.99 16.45

100 8 Iowa City F GA P 11.96 Absent

100 9 Iowa City N GA P 12.26 Absent

100 10 Iowa City F GA P 11.92 14.4

100 11 Iowa City N GA P 12.04 Absent

100 12 Iowa City F GA P 11.6 13.68

100 13 Iowa City N GA P 12.09 Absent

100 14 Iowa City F GA P 12.1 13.58

100 15 Iowa City N GA P 12.27 Absent

100 16 ODW Blank N N N Absent Absent

141 1 Iowa City N GA P 12.02 17.43

141 2 Iowa City F GA P 11.75 Absent

141 3 Iowa City N GA P 11.52 Absent

141 4 Iowa City F GA P 11.85 Absent

141 5 Iowa City N GA P 11.74 14.01

141 6 Pos TC N G P 13.79 Absent

141 7 Neg TC N N N Absent Absent

141 8 Pos EC GF GA P 13 12.57

141 9 Neg EC N G P 6.54 Absent

141 10 SDW N N N Absent Absent

141 11 ODW Blank N N N Absent Absent

Total Samples Positive 9 20 20 20 8
ENDETEC Method - ATP Case D11-0005 

50

Table C29. E. coli Results from Valley Forge, PA to obtain more results where 

ENDETEC was negative Log Reduction Value (LRV) = 2.15

Unit Chamber Site

ECMUG LTB BGLB TC TTD EC TTD

64 1 Valley Forge N GA P 13.32 Absent

64 2 Valley Forge N GA P 12.5 Absent

64 3 Valley Forge F GA P 13.01 Absent

64 4 Valley Forge N GA P 13.2 Absent

64 5 Valley Forge N GA P 12.87 Absent

64 6 Valley Forge N GA P 12.9 Absent

64 7 Valley Forge F GA P 12.69 13.87

64 8 Valley Forge N GA P 13.13 Absent

64 9 Valley Forge N GA P 12.96 14.4

64 10 Valley Forge F GA P 12.84 14.1

64 11 Valley Forge N GA P 13.35 Absent

64 12 Valley Forge N GA P 12.15 Absent

64 13 Valley Forge F GA P 13.04 14.89

64 14 Valley Forge N GA P 12.97 Absent

64 15 Valley Forge N GA P 12.95 Absent

64 16 ODW Blank N N N Absent Absent

66 1 Valley Forge N GA P 12.48 15.93

66 2 Valley Forge F GA P 12.74 Absent

66 3 Valley Forge F GA P 12.86 16.52

66 4 Valley Forge N GA P 12.81 Absent

66 5 Valley Forge F GA P 12.81 14.78

66 11 Pos TC N G P 14.69 Absent

66 12 Neg TC N N N Absent Absent

66 13 Pos EC GF GA P 12.54 12.29

66 14 Neg EC N G P 7.4 Absent

66 15 SDW N N N Absent Absent

66 16 ODW Blank N N N Absent Absent

Total Samples Positive 7 20 20 20 7
ENDETEC Method - ATP Case D11-0005 

51

Table C30. E. coli Results from Valley Forge, PA to obtain more results where 

ENDETEC was negative Log Reduction Value (LRV) = 2.15

Unit Chamber Site

ECMUG LTB BGLB TC TTD EC TTD

65 1 Valley Forge F GA P 12.88 16.71

65 2 Valley Forge F GA P 12.04 Absent

65 3 Valley Forge N GA P 12.55 Absent

65 4 Valley Forge F GA P 12.68 Absent

65 5 Valley Forge N GA P 12.97 Absent

65 6 Valley Forge F GA P 12.13 14.07

65 7 Valley Forge N GA P 11.68 Absent

65 8 Valley Forge F GA P 12.78 Absent

65 9 Valley Forge N GA P 12.53 Absent

65 10 Valley Forge N GA P 12.76 Absent

65 11 Valley Forge N GA P 12.69 16.16

65 12 Valley Forge F GA P 12.76 14.07

65 13 Valley Forge F GA P 12.81 Absent

65 14 Valley Forge F GA P 12.21 16.87

65 15 Valley Forge F GA P 12.74 14.51

65 16 ODW Blank N N N Absent Absent

66 6 Valley Forge F GA P 12.48 14.98

66 7 Valley Forge N GA P 12.83 Absent

66 8 Valley Forge F GA P 12.86 13.56

66 9 Valley Forge N GA P 12.43 Absent

66 10 Valley Forge F GA P 12.73 14.3

66 11 Pos TC N G P 14.69 Absent

66 12 Neg TC N N N Absent Absent

66 13 Pos EC GF GA P 12.54 12.29

66 14 Neg EC N G P 7.4 Absent

66 15 SDW N N N Absent Absent

66 16 ODW Blank N N N Absent Absent

Total Samples Positive 12 20 20 20 9
ENDETEC Method - ATP Case D11-0005 

52

Table C31. E. coli Results from San Diego, CA to obtain more results where 

ENDETEC was negative Log Reduction Value (LRV) = 2.14

Unit Chamber Site

ECMUG LTB BGLB TC TTD EC TTD

65 1 San Diego, CA Fg GA P 13.04 Absent

65 2 San Diego, CA G GA P 12.85 Absent

65 3 San Diego, CA G GA P 12.83 Absent

65 4 San Diego, CA FG GA P 13.14 16.04

65 5 San Diego, CA FG GA P 12.9 14.43

65 6 San Diego, CA FG GA P 13.25 15.6

65 7 San Diego, CA G GA P 12.9 Absent

65 8 San Diego, CA FG GA P 13.39 14.52

65 9 San Diego, CA G GA P 13.19 Absent

65 10 San Diego, CA Fg GA P 13.28 15.62

65 11 San Diego, CA G GA P 13.36 Absent

65 12 San Diego, CA G GA P 12.91 Absent

65 13 San Diego, CA Fg GA P 13.15 Absent

65 14 San Diego, CA G GA P 13.29 Absent

65 15 San Diego, CA G GA P 13.22 Absent

65 16 ODW Blank N N N Absent Absent

100 6 San Diego, CA Fg GA P 13.73 Absent

100 7 San Diego, CA Fg GA P 12.64 16.5

100 8 San Diego, CA G GA P 13.38 Absent

100 9 San Diego, CA FG GA P 13.57 Absent

100 10 San Diego, CA G GA P 13.56 Absent

100 16 ODW Blank N N N Absent Absent

136 1 Pos TC N G P 15.03 Absent

136 2 Neg TC N N N Absent Absent

136 3 Pos EC GF GA P 13.31 12.97

136 4 Neg EC N N N Absent Absent

136 5 SDW N N N Absent Absent

Total Samples Positive 10 20 20 20 6