# Method 1603: Escherichia coli ( E. coli ) in Water by Membrane Filtration Using Modified membrane-Thermotolerant Escherichia coli Agar (Modified mTEC)

December 2009

# U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water (4303T) 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20460

EPA-821-R-09-007

## Acknowledgments The following laboratories are gratefully acknowledged for their participation in the validation of this method in wastewater effluents: Volunteer Research Laboratory • EPA Office of Research and Development, Nati onal Risk Management Research Lab: Mark C. Meckes Volunteer Verification Laboratory • City of Los Angeles Bureau of Sanitation: Farh ana Mohamed, Ann Dalkey, Ioannice Lee, Genevieve Espineda, and Zora Bahariance Volunteer Participant Laboratories • City of Los Angeles Bureau of Sanitation: Farh ana Mohamed, Ann Dalkey, Ioannice Lee, Genevieve Espineda, and Zora Bahariance • County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (JWPCP): Kathy Walker, Michele Padilla, and Albert Soof • County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles C ounty (SJC): Shawn Thompson and Julie Millenbach • Environmental Associates (EA): Susan Boutros and John Chandler • Hampton Roads Sanitation District (HRSD) : Anna Rule, Paula Hogg, and Bob Maunz • Hoosier Microbiological Laboratories (HML): Don Hendrickson, Katy Bilger, and Lindsey Shelton • Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA): Steve Rhode and Mariya Gofhsteyn • North Shore Sanitation District (NSSD): Robert Flood • Texas A&M University: Suresh Pillai and Reema Singh • University of Iowa Hygienic Laboratory: Nancy Hall and Cathy Lord • Wisconsin State Laboratory of Hygiene (WSLH): Jon Standridge, Sharon Kl uender, Linda Peterson, and Jeremy Olstadt • Utah Department of Health: Sanwat Chaudhuri and Devon Coleiii 

## Disclaimer Neither the United States Government nor any of its employees, contractors, or their employees make any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for any third party’s use of or the results of such use of any information, apparatus, product, or process discussed in this report, or represents that its use by such party would not in fringe on privately owned rights. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not cons titute endorsement or recommendation for use. Questions concerning this method or its application should be addressed to: Robin K. Oshiro Engineering and Analysis Division (4303T) U.S. EPA Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20460 oshiro.robin@epa.gov or OSTCWAMethods@epa.goviv 

## Table of Contents

1.0 Scope and Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2.0 Summary of Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3.0 Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 4.0 Interferences and Contamination ................................................. 2 5.0 Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 6.0 Equipment and Supplies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 7.0 Reagents and Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 8.0 Sample Collection, Preservation, and Storage ....................................... 9 9.0 Quality Control ............................................................... 9 10.0 Calibration and Standardization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 11.0 Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 12.0 Verification Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 13.0 Data Analysis and Calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 14.0 Sample Spiking Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 15.0 Method Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 16.0 Pollution Prevention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 17.0 Waste Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 18.0 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24v 

## List of Appendices Appendices A and B are taken from Microbiological Methods for Monitoring the Environment: Water and Wastes (Reference 18.5). Appendix A: Part II (General Operations), Secti on A (Sample Collection, Preservation, and Storage) Appendix B: Part II (General Operations), Secti ons C.3.5 (Counting Colonies) and C.3.6 (Calculation of Results).December 2009 

## Method 1603: Escherichia coli ( E. coli ) in Water by Membrane Filtration Using Modified membrane- Thermotolerant Escherichia coli Agar (modified mTEC) December 2009 1.0 Scope and Application 1.1 Method 1603 describes a membrane filter (MF) pro cedure for the detection and enumeration of Escherichia colibacteria in ambient waters and disinfected wastewaters. This method is a singlestep modification of EPA Method 1103.1 (mTEC). Unlike the mTEC media method, it does not require the transfer of the membrane filter to another substrate. The modified medium contains a chromogen (5-bromo-6-chloro-3-indolyl- $ -D-glucuronide), which is catabolized to glucuronic acid and a red- or magenta-colored compound by E. coli that produces the enzyme $ -Dglucuronidase. The apparatus and equipment, and sampling, filtration, and verification procedures for the modified mTEC method are identical to those of the original mTEC method. 1.2 E. coli is a common inhabitant of the intestinal tract of warm-blooded animals, and its presence in water samples is an indication of fecal pollution and the possible presence of enteric pathogens. 1.3 The E. coli test is recommended as a measure of ambient recreational fresh water quality. Epidemiological studies have led to the developmen t of criteria which can be used to promulgate recreational water standards based on established re lationships between health effects and water quality. The significance of finding E. coli in recreational fresh water samples is the direct relationship between the density of E. coli and the risk of gastroin testinal illness associated with swimming in the water (Reference 18.1). 1.4 For method application please refer to Title 40 C ode of Federal Regulations Part 136 (40 CFR Part 136). 

## 2.0 Summary of Method 2.1 Method 1603 provides a direct count of E. coli in ambient water or wastewater based on the development of colonies that grow on the surface of a membrane filter. A sample is filtered through the membrane, which retains the bacteria. After filtration, the membrane is placed on a selective and differential medium, modified mTEC agar, incubated at 35°C ± 0.5°C for 2 ± 0.5 hours to resuscitate injured or stressed bacteria, and then incubated at 44.5°C ± 0.2°C for 22 ± 2 hours. The target colonies on modified mTEC agar are red or magenta in color after the incubation period. 

## 3.0 Definitions 3.1 In Method 1603, E. coli are those bacteria which produce red or magenta colonies on the modified mTEC agar.Method 1603

December 2009 2 

## 4.0 Interferences and Contamination 4.1 Water samples containing colloidal or suspended particulate material can clog the membrane filter and prevent filtration, or cause spreading of bacterial colonies which could interfere with enumeration and identification of target colonies. 

## 5.0 Safety 5.1 The analyst must know and observe the normal safety procedures required in a microbiology laboratory while preparing, using, and disposi ng of cultures, reagents, and materials and while operating sterilization equipment. 5.2 Mouth-pipetting is prohibited. 5.3 This method does not address all safety issues associated with its use. The laboratory is responsible for maintaining a safe work envi ronment and a current awareness file of OSHA regulations regarding the safe handling of the chemi cals specified in this method. A reference file containing material safety data sheets (MSDSs) should be available to all personnel involved in these analyses. 

## 6.0 Equipment and Supplies 6.1 Glass lens with magnification of 2-5X, or stereoscopic microscope 6.2 Lamp, with a cool, white fluorescent tube 6.3 Hand tally or electronic counting device 6.4 Pipet container, stainless steel, aluminum or borosilicate glass, for glass pipets 6.5 Pipets, sterile, T.D. bacteriological or M ohr, glass or plastic, of appropriate volume 6.6 Sterile graduated cylinders, 100-1000 mL, covered with aluminum foil or kraft paper 6.7 Sterile membrane filtration units (filter base and funnel), glass, plastic or stainless steel, wrapped with aluminum foil or kraft paper 6.8 Ultraviolet unit for sanitization of the f ilter funnel between filtrations (optional) 6.9 Line vacuum, electric vacuum pump, or aspirator for use as a vacuum source (In an emergency or in the field, a hand pump or a syringe equipped w ith a check valve to prevent the return flow of air, can be used) 6.10 Filter flask, vacuum, usually 1 L, with appropriate tubing 6.11 Filter manifold to hold a number of filter bases (optional) 6.12 Flask for safety trap placed between th e filter flask and the vacuum source 6.13 Forceps, straight or curved, with smooth tips to handle filters without damage 6.14 Ethanol, methanol or isopropanol in a small, wi de-mouth container, for flame-sterilizing forceps 6.15 Burner, Bunsen or Fisher type, or electric in cinerator unit for sterilizing loops and needlesMethod 1603

December 2009 3 6.16 Thermometer, checked against a National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) certified thermometer, or one that meets the requirements of NIST Monograph SP 250-23 6.17 Petri dishes, sterile, plastic, 9 × 50 mm, with tight-fitting lids; and 15 × 100 mm with loose fitting lids 6.18 Bottles, milk dilution, borosilicate glass, screw-cap with neoprene liners, 125 mL volume 6.19 Flasks, borosilicate glass, screw-cap, 250-2000 mL volume 6.20 Membrane filters, sterile, white, grid marked, 47 mm diameter, with 0.45 μm pore size 6.21 Platinum wire inoculation loops, at least 3 mm diameter in suitable holders; or sterile plastic loops 6.22 Sterile disposable applicator sticks 6.23 Incubator maintained at 35°C ± 0.5°C, with approximately 90% humidity if loose-lidded petri dishes are used 6.24 Waterbath maintained at 44.5°C ± 0.2°C 6.25 Waterbath maintained at 50°C for tempering agar 6.26 Test tubes, 20 × 150 mm, borosilicate glass or plastic 6.27 Test tubes, 10 × 75 mm, borosilicate glass (durham tubes) 6.28 Caps, aluminum or autoclavable plastic, for 20 mm diameter test tubes 6.29 Test tubes screw-cap, borosilicate glass, 16 × 125 mm or other appropriate size 6.30 Whirl-Pak® bags or equivalent 6.31 Autoclave or steam sterilizer capable of achievi ng 121°C [15 lb pressure per square inch (PSI)] for 15 minutes 6.32 Filter paper 

## 7.0 Reagents and Standards 7.1 Purity of Reagents: Reagent grade chemicals sh all be used in all tests. Unless otherwise indicated, reagents shall conform to the specifi cations of the Committee on Analytical Reagents of the American Chemical Society (Reference 18. 3). The agar used in preparation of culture media must be of microbiological grade. 7.2 Whenever possible, use commercial cultu re media as a means of quality control. 7.3 Purity of reagent water: Reagent-grade water conforming to specifications in: Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater (latest edition approved by EPA in 40 CFR Part 136 or 141, as applicable), Section 9020 (Reference 18.4).Method 1603

December 2009 4 7.4 Phosphate buffered saline (PBS) 7.4.1 Composition: Monosodium phosphate (NaH 2 PO 4 ) 0.58 g Disodium phosphate (Na 2 HPO 4 ) 2.5 g Sodium chloride 8.5 g Reagent-grade water 1.0 L

7.4.2 Dissolve the ingredients in 1 L of reagen t-grade water, and dispense in appropriate amounts for dilutions in screw cap bottles or cultu re tubes, and/or into containers for use as rinse water. Autoclave at 121°C (15 PSI) for 15 minutes. Final pH should be 7.4 ± 0.2. Note : The initial and ongoing precision and recovery (IPR and OPR) performance criteria established for Method 1603 were determinedusing spiked PBS samples (Section 9.3, Table 1 ). Laboratories must use PBS when performing IPR and OPR sample analyses. However, phosphate-buffered dilution water (S ection 7.5) may be substituted for PBS as a sample diluent and filtration rinse buffer. 7.5 Phosphate buffered dilution water (Reference 18.5) 7.5.1 Composition of stock phosphate buffer solution: Monopotassium phosphate (KH 2 PO 4 ) 34.0 g Reagent-grade water 500.0 mL

Preparation: Dissolve KH 2 PO 4 in 500 mL reagent-grade water. Adjust the pH of the solution to 7.2 with 1 N NaOH, and bring the volume to 1 L with reagent-grade water. Sterilize by filtration or autoclave at 121°C (15 PSI) for 15 minutes. 7.5.2 Preparation of stock magnesium chloride (MgCl 2 ) solution: Add 38 g anhydrous MgCl 2 or 81.1 g magnesium chloride hexahydrate (MgCl 2 C 6H 2 O) to 1 L reagent-grade water. Sterilize by filtration or autoclave at 121°C (15 PSI) for 15 minutes. 7.5.3 After sterilization, store the stock soluti ons in the refrigerator until used. Handle aseptically. If evidence of mold or other c ontamination appears, the affected stock solution should be discarded and a fresh solution should be prepared. 7.5.4 Working phosphate buffered dilution water: Mix 1.25 mL of the stock phosphate buffer and 5 mL of the MgCl 2 stock per liter of reagent-grade water. Dispense in appropriate amounts for dilutions and/or for use as rinse buffer. Autoclave at 121°C (15 PSI) for 15 minutes. Final pH should be 7.0 ± 0.2.Method 1603

December 2009 5 7.6 Modified mTEC agar 7.6.1 Composition: Protease peptone #3 5.0 g Yeast extract 3.0 g Lactose 10.0 g Sodium chloride 7.5 g Dipotassium phosphate (K 2 HPO 4 ) 3.3 g Monopotassium phosphate (KH 2 PO 4 ) 1.0 g Sodium lauryl sulfate 0.2 g Sodium desoxycholate 0.1 g Chromogen (5-bromo-6-chloro-3-indolyl- $ -D-glucuronide) 0.5 g Agar 15.0 g Reagent-grade water 1.0 L

7.6.2 Add dry ingredients to 1 L of reagent-grade water, mix thoroughly, heat to dissolve completely. Autoclave at 121°C (15 PSI) for 15 minutes, and cool in a 50°C waterbath; adjust pH to 7.3 ± 0.2. with 1.0 N hydrochloric acid or 1.0 N sodium hydroxide. Pour the medium into each 9 × 50 mm culture dish to a 4-5 mm depth (approximately 4-6 mL), and allow to solidify. Store in a refrigerator. 7.7 Nutrient agar 7.7.1 Composition: Peptone 5.0 g Beef extract 3.0 g Agar 15.0 g Reagent-grade water 1.0 L

7.7.2 Add reagents to 1 L of reagent-grade water, mix thoroughly, and heat to dissolve completely. Dispense into screw-cap tub es, and autoclave at 121°C (15 PSI) for 15 minutes. Remove the tubes and slant. Final pH should be 6.8 ± 0.2.Method 1603

December 2009 6 7.8 Tryptic/trypticase soy broth 7.8.1 Composition: Pancreatic digest of casein 17.0 g Enzymatic/papaic digest of soybean meal 3.0 g Sodium chloride 5.0 g Dextrose 2.5 g Dipotassium phosphate (K 2 HPO 4 ) 2.5 g Reagent-grade water 1.0 L

7.8.2 Add reagents to 1 L of reagent-grade water, mix thoroughly, and heat to dissolve completely. Dispense into screw-cap tub es, and autoclave at 121°C (15 PSI) for 15 minutes. Final pH should be 7.3 ± 0.2. 7.9 Simmons citrate agar 7.9.1 Composition: Magnesium sulfate (MgSO 4 ) 0.2 g Monoammonium phosphate (NH 4 H 2 PO 4 ) 1.0 g Dipotassium phosphate (K 2 HPO 4 ) 1.0 g Sodium citrate (Citric acid) 2.0 g Sodium chloride 5.0 g Bromthymol Blue 0.08 g Agar 15.0 g Reagent-grade water 1.0 L

7.9.2 Add reagents to 1 L of reagent-grade water, mix thoroughly, and heat to dissolve completely. Dispense into screw-cap tub es, and autoclave at 121°C (15 PSI) for 15 minutes. Cool the tubes and slant. Final pH should be 6.9 ± 0.2. 7.10 Tryptone water 7.10.1 Composition: Tryptone 10.0 g Sodium chloride 5.0 g Reagent-grade water 1.0 L 7.10.2 Add reagents to 1 L of reagent grade water and mix thoroughly to dissolve. Dispense in 5-mL volumes into tubes, and autoclave at 121°C (15 PSI) for 15 minutes. Final pH should be 7.3 ± 0.2.Method 1603

December 2009 7 7.11 EC broth 7.11.1 Composition: Tryptose or trypticase peptone 20.0 g Lactose 5.0 g Bile salts No.3 1.5 g Dipotassium phosphate (K 2 HPO 4 ) 4.0 g Monopotassium phosphate (KH 2 PO 4 ) 1.5 g Sodium chloride 5.0 g Reagent-grade water 1.0 L

7.11.2 Add reagents to 1 L of reagent-grade water, mix thoroughly, and heat to dissolve completely. Dispense into fermentation tubes (20 × 150 mm tubes containing inverted 10 × 75 mm tubes). Autoclave at 121°C (15 PSI) for 15 minutes. Final pH should be 6.9 ± 0.2. Note: Do not use tubes if the inverted tubes (durham tubes) are not completely filled with medium after sterilization. 7.12 Oxidase reagent 7.12.1 Composition: N, N, N’, N’-tetramethyl- D -phenylenediamine dihydrochlorid e, 1% aqueous solution (1 g per 100 mL sterile reagent-grade water). Note : Prepared oxidase test slides are commerc ially available and are recommended for colony verification (Section 12.0). 7.13 Kovacs indole reagent 7.13.1 Composition:
D -dimethylaminobenzaldehyde 10.0 g Amyl or isoamyl alcohol 150.0 mL Concentrated (12 M) hydrochloric acid 50.0 mL

7.13.2 Preparation: Dissolve D -dimethylaminobenzaldehyde in al cohol, slowly add hydrochloric acid, and mix.Method 1603

December 2009 8 7.14 Tryptic soy agar (TSA) 7.14.1 Composition: Pancreatic digest of casein 15.0 g Enzymatic digest of soybean meal 5.0 g Sodium chloride 5.0 g Agar 15.0 g Reagent- grade water 1.0 L

7.14.2 Add reagents to 1 L of reagent-grade water, mix thoroughly, and heat to dissolve completely. Autoclave at 121°C (15 PSI) for 15 minutes and cool in a 50°C waterbath. Pour the medium into each 15 × 100 mm culture dish to a 4-5 mm depth and allow to solidify. Final pH should be 7.3 ± 0.2. 7.15 Lauryl tryptose broth (LTB) 7.15.1 Composition: Tryptose 20.0 g Lactose 5.0 g Dipotassium phosphate (K 2 HPO 4 ) 2.75 g Monopotassium phosphate (KH 2 PO 4 ) 2.75 g Sodium chloride 5.0 g Sodium lauryl sulfate 0.1 g

7.15.1 Preparation: Add reagents (Section 7.15.1) to 1 L of reagent-grade water, heat with frequent mixing, and boil for one minute to dissolve completely. Autoclave at 121°C (15 PSI) for 15 minutes. Final pH should be 6.8 ± 0.2. 7.16 Control cultures 7.16.1 Positive control and/or spiking organism (either of the following are acceptable): • Stock cultures of Escherichia coli( E. coli ) ATCC #11775

• E. coli ATCC #11775 BioBalls (bioMérieux Inc., Durham NC)
7.16.2 Negative control organism (either of the following are acceptable): • Stock cultures of Enterococcus faecalis ( E. faecalis ) ATCC #19433

• E. faecalis ATCC #19433 BioBalls (bioMérieux Inc., Durham NC) OR • Stock cultures of Enterobacter aerogenes ( E. aerogenes ) ATCC #13048Method 1603

December 2009 9 

## 8.0 Sample Collection, Handling, and Storage 8.1 Sampling procedures are briefly described belo w. Detailed sampling methods can be found in Microbiological Methods for Monitoring the Environment: Water and Wastes , Part II, Section A (see Appendix A). Adherence to sample handling procedures and holding time limits is critical to the production of valid data. Samples should not be analyzed if these conditions are not met. 8.1.1 Sampling Techniques Samples are collected by hand or with a sampling device if the sampling site has difficult access such as a dock, bridge or bank adjacent to a surface water. Composite samples should not be collected, since such samples do not display the range of values found in individual samples. The sampling depth for surface water samples should be 6-12 inches below the water surface. Sample containers should be positioned such that the mouth of the container is pointed away from the sampler or sample point. After removal of the container from the water, a small portion of the sample should be discarded to allow for proper mixing before analyses. 8.1.2. Storage Temperature and Handling Conditions Ice or refrigerate water samples at a temperature of <10°C during transit to the laboratory. Do not freeze the samples. Use insulated containers to assure proper maintenance of storage temperature. Take care that sample bottles are not totally immersed in water during transit or storage. 8.1.3 Holding Time Limitations Sample analysis should begin immediately, preferably within 2 hours of collection. The maximum transport time to the laboratory in 6 hours, and samples should be processed within 2 hours of receipt at the laboratory. 

## 9.0 Quality Control 9.1 Each laboratory that uses Method 1603 is requi red to operate a formal quality assurance (QA) program that addresses and documents instrument and equipment maintenance and performance, reagent quality and performance, analyst training and certification, and records storage and retrieval. Additional recommendations for QA and quality control (QC) procedures for microbiological laboratories are provided in Reference 18.5. 9.2 The minimum analytical QC requirements for the analysis of samples using Method 1603 include an initial demonstration of laboratory capability through performance of the initial precision and recovery (IPR) analyses (Section 9.3), ongoing demonstration of laboratory capability through performance of the ongoing precision and recovery (O PR) analysis (Section 9.4) and matrix spike (MS) analysis (Section 9.5, disinfected wastewater only), and the routine analysis of positive and negative controls (Section 9.6), filter sterility ch ecks (Section 9.8), method blanks (Section 9.9), and media sterility checks (Section 9.11). For the IPR, OPR and MS analyses, it is necessary to spike samples with either laboratory-prepared sp iking suspensions or BioBalls as described in Section 14.Method 1603

December 2009 10 Note: Performance criteria for Method 1603 are based on the results of the interlaboratory validation of Method 1603 in PBS and disinfectedwastewater matrices. Although the matrix spike recovery criteria (Section 9.5, Table 2 ) pertain only to disinfected wastewaters, the IPR (Section 9.3) and OPR (Section 9.4) recovery criteria (Table 1) are valid method performance criteria that should be met, regardless of the matrix being evaluated. 9.3 Initial precision and recovery (IPR) —The IPR analyses are used to demonstrate acceptable method performance (recovery and precision) and should be performed by each laboratory before the method is used for monitoring field samples. EPA recommends but does not require that an IPR be performed by each analyst. IPR samples should be accompanied by an acceptable method blank (Section 9.9) and appropriate media sterility checks (Section 9.11). The IPR analyses are performed as follows: 9.3.1 Prepare four, 100-mL samples of PBS and spike each sample with E. coli ATCC #11775 according to the spiking procedure in Section 14. Spiking with laboratory-prepared suspensions is described in Section 14.2 and spiking with BioBalls is described in Section 14.3. Filter and process each IPR sam ple according to the procedures in Section 11 and calculate the number of E. coli per 100 mL according to Section 13. 9.3.2 Calculate the percent recovery (R) for each IPR sample using the appropriate equation in Section 14.2.2 or 14.3.4 for samples spiked with laboratory-prepared spiking suspensions or BioBalls, respectively. 9.3.3 Using the percent recoveries of the four an alyses, calculate the mean percent recovery and the relative standard deviation (RSD) of the recoveries. The RSD is the standard deviation divided by the mean, multiplied by 100. 9.3.4 Compare the mean recovery and RSD with the corresponding IPR criteria in Table 1, below. If the mean and RSD for recovery of E. coli meet acceptance criteria, system performance is acceptable and analysis of field samples may begin. If the mean recovery or the RSD fall outside of the required range for recovery, system performance is unacceptable. In this event, identify the probl em by evaluating each step of the analytical process, media, reagents, and controls, corr ect the problem and repeat the IPR analyses.
Table 1. Initial and Ongoing Precision and Reco very (IPR and OPR) Acceptance Criteria Performance test Lab-prepared spike acceptance criteria BioBallTM acceptance criteria Initial precision and recovery (IPR) • Mean percent recovery • Precision (as maximum relative standard deviation) 46% - 119% detect - 144% 36% 61% Ongoing precision and recovery (OPR) as percent recovery 38% - 127% detect - 144%Method 1603

December 2009 11 9.4 Ongoing precision and recovery (OPR) —To demonstrate ongoing control of the analytical system, the laboratory should routinely process a nd analyze spiked PBS samples. The laboratory should analyze one OPR sample after every 20 field and matrix spike samples or one per week that samples are analyzed, whichever occurs more frequently. OPR samples must be accompanied by an acceptable method blank (Section 9.9) and appropriate media sterility checks (Section 9.11). The OPR analysis is performed as follows: 9.4.1 Spike a 100-mL PBS sample with E. coli ATCC #11775 according to the spiking procedure in Section 14. Spiking with labor atory-prepared suspensions is described in Section 14.2 and spiking with BioBalls is d escribed in Section 14.3. Filter and process each OPR sample according to the procedures in Section 11 and calculate the number of E. coli per 100 mL according to Section 13. 9.4.2 Calculate the percent recovery (R) for the OPR sample using the appropriate equation in Section 14.2.2 or 14.3.4 for samples spiked with laboratory-prepared spiking suspensions or BioBalls, respectively. 9.4.3 Compare the OPR result (percent recovery) with the corresponding OPR recovery criteria in Table 1, above. If the OPR result meets the acceptance criteria for recovery, method performance is acceptable and analysis of field samples may continue. If the OPR result falls outside of the acceptance criteria, system performance is unacceptable. In this event, identify the problem by ev aluating each step of the analytical process (media, reagents, and controls), correct the problem and repeat the OPR analysis. 9.4.4 As part of the laboratory QA program, results for OPR and IPR samples should be charted and updated records maintained in order to monitor ongoing method performance. The laboratory should also develop a statement of accuracy for Method 1603 by calculating the average percent recovery (R) and the standard deviation of the percent recovery (s r ). Express the accuracy as a recovery interval from R - 2 s rto R + 2s r . 9.5 Matrix spikes (MS) —MS analysis are performed to determine the effect of a particular matrix on E. coli recoveries. The laboratory should analyze one MS sample when disinfected wastewater samples are first received from a source from which the laboratory has not previously analyzed samples. Subsequently, 5% of field samples (1 per 20) from a given disinfected wastewater source should include a MS sample. MS samples must be accompanied by the analysis of an unspiked field sample sequentially collected from the same sampling site, an acceptable method blank (Section 9.9), and appropriate media sterility checks (Section 9.11). When possible, MS analyses should also be acco mpanied by an OPR sample (Section 9.4), using the same spiking procedure (laboratory-prepared spiking suspension or BioBalls). The MS analysis is performed as follows: 9.5.1 Prepare two, 100-mL field samples that were sequentially collected from the same site. One sample will remain unspiked and will be analyzed to determine the background or ambient concentration of E. coli for calculating MS recoveries (Section 9.5.3). The other sample will serve as the MS sample and will be spiked with E. coli ATCC #11775 according to the spiking procedure in Section 14.Method 1603

December 2009 12 9.5.2 Select sample volumes based on previous analytical results or anticipated levels of E. coli in the field sample in order to achieve the recommended target range of E. coli (20-80 CFU, including spike) per filter. If the laboratory is not familiar with the matrix being analyzed, it is recommended that a minimum of three dilutions be analyzed to ensure that a countable plate is obtained for the MS and associated unspiked sample. If possible, 100-mL of sample should be analyzed. 9.5.3 Spike the MS sample volume(s) with a labor atory-prepared suspension as described in Section 14.2 or with BioBalls as described in Section 14.3. Immediately filter and process the unspiked and spiked field samples according to the procedures in Section 11. Note: When analyzing smaller sample volumes (e.g, <20 mL), 20-30 mL of PBS should be added to the funnel or an aliquot of sample should be dispensed into a 20-30 mL dilution blank prior to filtration. This will allow even distribution of the sample on the membrane. 9.5.4 For the MS sample, calculate the number of E. coli (CFU/100 mL) according to Section 13 and adjust the colony counts based on any background E. coli observed in the unspiked matrix sample. 9.5.5 Calculate the percent recovery (R) for the MS sample (adjusted based on ambient E. coli in the unspiked sample) using the appropriate equation in Section 14.2.2 or 14.3.4 for samples spiked with laboratory-prepared spiking suspensions or BioBalls, respectively. 9.5.6 Compare the MS result (percent recovery) with the appropriate method performance criteria in Table 2, below. If the MS r ecovery meets the acceptance criteria, system performance is acceptable and analysis of fi eld samples from this disinfected wastewater source may continue. If the MS recovery is unacceptable and the OPR sample result associated with this batch of samples is accep table, a matrix interference may be causing the poor results. If the MS recovery is unacceptable, all associated field data should be flagged. 9.5.7 Acceptance criteria for MS recovery (Table 2) are based on data from spiked disinfected wastewater matrices and are not appropriate for use with other matrices (e.g., ambient recreational waters).
Table 2. Matrix Spike Precision and Recovery Acceptance Criteria Performance test Lab-prepared acceptance criteria BioBallTM acceptance criteria Percent recovery for MS 12% - 149% 17% - 117%

9.5.8 Laboratories should record and maintain a control chart comparing MS recoveries for all matrices to batch-specific and cumulative OPR sample results analyzed using Method 1603. These comparisons should help laboratories recognize matrix effects on method recovery and may also help to recognize inc onsistent or sporadic matrix effects from a particular source.Method 1603

December 2009 13 9.6 Culture Controls 9.6.1 Negative controls— The laboratory should analyze negative controls to ensure that the modified mTEC agar is pe rforming properly. Negative controls should be analyzed whenever a new batch of media or reagents is used. On an ongoing basis, the laboratory should perform a negative control every day that samples are analyzed. 9.6.1.1 Negative controls are conducted by filte ring a dilute suspension of viable E. faecalis (e.g., ATCC #19433) and analyzing as described in Section 11. Viability of the negative controls should be demonstrated using a non-selective media (e.g., nutrient agar or tryptic soy agar). 9.6.1.2 If the negative control fails to exhibit the appropriate response, check and/or replace the associated media or reagents , and/or the negative control, and reanalyze the appropriate negative control. 9.6.2 Positive controls— The laboratory should analyze positive controls to ensure that the modified mTEC agar is performing properly. Positive controls should be analyzed whenever a new batch of media or reagents is used. On an ongoing basis, the laboratory should perform a positive control every day th at samples are analyzed. An OPR sample (Section 9.4) may take the place of a positive control. 9.6.2.1 Positive controls are conducted by filte ring a dilute suspension of viable E. coli (e.g., ATCC #11775) and analyzing as described in Section 11. 9.6.2.2 If the positive control fails to exhibit the appropriate response, check and/or replace the associated media or reagen ts, and/or the positive control, and reanalyze the appropriate positive control. 9.6.3 Controls for verification media—All verification media should be tested with appropriate positive and negative controls whenever a new batch of media and/or reagents are used. On an ongoing basis, the laboratory should perform positive and negative controls on the verification medi a with each batch of samples submitted to verification. Examples of appropriate controls for verification media are provided in Table 3

.

Table 3. Verification Controls Medium Positive Control Negative Control Cytochrome oxidase reagent P. aeruginosa E. coli Kovac’s indole reagent E. coli E. aerogenes Simmons citrate agar E. aerogenes S. flexneri EC broth (44.5°C ± 0.2°C) E. coli E. aerogenes

9.7 Colony verification— The laboratory should verify 10 typical colonies (positive) and 10 atypical colonies (negative) per month or 1 typical colony and 1 atypical colony from 10% of all positive samples, whichever is greater. Verification procedures are provided in Section 12.0.Method 1603

December 2009 14 9.8 Filter sterility check—Place at least one membrane filter per lot of filters on a TSA plate, and incubate for 24 ± 2 hours at 35°C ± 0.5°C. Absence of growth indicates sterility of the filter. On an ongoing basis, the laboratory should perform a filter sterility check every day that samples are analyzed. 9.9 Method blank—Filter a 50-mL volume of sterile PBS or phosphate-buffered dilution water, place the filter on a modified mTEC agar plate and process according to Section 11. Absence of growth indicates freedom of contamination from the target organism. On an ongoing basis, the laboratory should perform a method blank every day that samples are analyzed. 9.10 Filtration blank—Filter a 50-mL volume of sterile PBS or phosphate-buffered dilution water before beginning sample filtrations. Place the filte r on a TSA plate, and incubate for 24 ± 2 hours at 35°C ± 0.5°C. Absence of growth indicates sterility of the PBS buffer and filtration assembly. 9.11 Media sterility check—The laboratory should test media sterility by incubating one unit (tube or plate) from each batch of medium (TSA, modified mTEC, and verification media) as appropriate and observing for growth. Absence of growth indicates media sterility. On an ongoing basis, the laboratory should perform a media sterility check every day that samples are analyzed. 9.12 Analyst colony counting variability—Laboratories with two or more analysts should compare each analyst's colony counts from one positive field sample per month. Colony counts should be within 10% between analysts. Laboratories with a single analyst should have that analyst perform duplicate colony counts of a single membrane filter each month. Duplicate colony counts should be within 5% for a single analyst. If no positive field samples are available, a OPR sample may be substituted for these determinations. 

## 10.0 Calibration and Standardization 10.1 Check temperatures in incubators twice daily with a minimum of 4 hours between each reading to ensure operation within stated limits. 10.2 Check thermometers at least annually against a NIST certified thermometer or one that meets the requirements of NIST Monograph SP 250-23. Check mercury columns for breaks. 10.3 Refrigerators used to store media and reagents should be monitored daily to ensure proper temperature control. 

## 11.0 Procedure 11.1 Prepare the modified mTEC agar as directed in Section 7.6. 11.2 Mark the petri dish and report form with the sample identification and volume. 11.3 Place a sterile membrane filter on the filter base, grid side up, and attach the funnel to the base so that the membrane filter is held between the funnel and the base. 11.4 Shake the sample bottle vigorously at least 25 tim es to distribute the bacteria uniformly, and measure the desired volume of sample or dilution into the funnel.Method 1603

December 2009 15 11.5 Select sample volumes based on previous knowle dge of the pollution level, to produce 20-80 E. coli colonies on the membranes. It is recommended that a minimum of three dilutions be analyzed to ensure that a countable plate (20-60 enterococci colonies) is obtained. 11.6 Smaller sample sizes or sample dilutions can be u sed to minimize the interference of turbidity or for high bacterial densities. Multiple volumes of the same sample or sample dilutions may be filtered. Note: When analyzing smaller sample volumes (e.g., <20 mL), 20-30 mL of PBS or phosphatebuffered dilution water should be added to the f unnel or an aliquot of sample should be dispensed into a dilution blank prior to filtration. This will allow even distribution of the sample on the membrane. 11.7 Filter the sample, and rinse the sides of the funnel at least twice with 20-30 mL of sterile buffered rinse water. Turn off the vacuum, a nd remove the funnel from the filter base. 11.8 Use sterile forceps to aseptically remove the me mbrane filter from the filter base, and roll it onto the modified mTEC agar to avoid the formation of bubbles between the membrane and the agar surface. Reseat the membrane if bubbles occur. Run the forceps around the edge of the filter outside the area of filtration, close to the edge of the dish, to be sure that the filter is properly seated on the agar. Close the dish, invert, and incubate 35°C ± 0.5°C for 2 ± 0.5 hours. 11.9 After a 2 ± 0.5 hour incubation at 35°C ± 0.5°C, transfer the plates to a Whirl-Pak® bag, seal the bag, and submerge in a 44.5°C ± 0.2°C waterbath for 22 ± 2 hours. Note: Do not overfill the Whirl-Pak® bag because th is will prevent proper sealing allowing liquid to enter the bag and possibly contaminating the plates. 11.10 After 22 ± 2 hours, remove the plates from the wate rbath, count and record the number of red or magenta colonies with the aid of an illuminated le ns with a 2-5X magnification or a stereoscopic microscope (See Photo 1 ).

Photo 1. E. coli colonies on modified mTEC agar are red to magenta.Method 1603

December 2009 16 

## 12.0 Verification Procedure 12.1 Red or magenta colonies are considered “typical” E. coli . Verification of typical and atypical colonies may be required in evidence gathering and is also recommended as a means of quality control. The verification procedure follows. 12.2 Using a sterile inoculating loop or needle, transfer growth from the centers of at least 10 wellisolated typical and 10 well-isolated atypical colonies to nutrient agar plates or slants and to tryptic/trypticase soy broth. Incubate the agar and broth cultures for 24 ± 2 hours at 35°C ± 0.5°C. 12.3 After incubation, transfer growth from the nutri ent agar slant and perform cytochrome oxidase test. If the area where the bacteria were applie d turns deep purple within 15 seconds, the test is positive. Note: Use only platinum, plastic, or wooden applicators to perform the oxidase test. Do not use iron or other reactive wire because it may cause false positive reactions. 12.4 Transfer growth from the tryptic/trypticase soy broth tube to Simmons citrate agar, tryptone water, and an EC broth. 12.4.1 Incubate the Simmons citrate agar for 4 days at 35°C ± 2°C in an aerobic atmosphere. A positive reaction is indicated by growth withan intense blue color on the slant. E. coli is citrate negative, and thus for this organism on this medium there should be either no growth or trace growth with no change in ag ar color (i.e., medium remains dark green). 12.4.2 Incubate the EC broth at 44.5°C ± 0.2°C in a waterbath for 24 ± 2 hours. The water level must be above the level of the EC broth in the tube. A positive test is indicated by turbidity and production of gas as seen in the inner durham tube. 12.4.3 Incubate the tryptone water for 18-24 hours at 35°C ± 2°C with loosened caps. After the incubation period, add 0.5 mL of Kovacs I ndole Reagent and shake the tube gently. Allow the tubes to stand for 5-10 minutes at room temperature. A positive test for indole is indicated by a deep red color which develops in the alcohol layer on top of the broth. 12.5 E. coli are oxidase- negative, citrate- negative, EC growth- and gas-positive, and indole-positive. 12.6 Alternately, commercially available multi-test identification systems may be used to verify colonies. Inoculate the colonies into an identif ication system for Enterobacteriaceae that includes lactose fermentation, F -nitrophenyl- $ -D-galactopyranoside (ONPG), and cytochrome oxidase test reactions. 

## 13.0 Data Analysis and Calculations Use the following general rules to calculate the E. coli count (CFU) per 100 mL of sample: 13.1 If possible, select a membrane filter with 20-80 ma genta or red colonies, and calculate the number of E. coli per 100 mL according to the following general formula:

E. coli / 100 mL = Number of E. coli colonies × 100 Volume of sample filtered (mL)Method 1603

December 2009 17 13.2 See general counting rules in Microbiological Methods for Monitoring the Environment: Water and Wastes , Part II, Sections C.3.5 and C.3.6 (see Appendix B). 13.3 Report results as E. coli CFU per 100 mL of sample. 

## 14.0 Sample Spiking Procedure 14.1 Method 1603 QC requirements (Section 9.0) include the preparation and analysis of spiked reference (PBS) and matrix samples in order to monitor initial and ongoing method performance. For the IPR (Section 9.3), OPR (Section 9.4), and MS (Section 9.5) tests it is necessary to spike samples with either laboratory-prepared spiking suspensions (Section 14.2) or BioBalls (Section 14.3) as described below. 14.2 Laboratory-Prepared Spiking Suspensions 14.2.1 Preparation of laboratory-prepared spikes 14.2.1.1 Stock Culture. Prepare a stock culture by inoculating a TSA slant (or other non-selective media) with Escherichia coliATCC #11775 and incubating at 35°C ± 3°C for 20 ± 4 hours. This stock culture may be stored in the dark at room temperature for up to 30 days. 14.2.1.2 Undiluted Spiking Suspension. Prepare a 1% solution of lauryl tryptosebroth (LTB) by combining 99 mL of sterile PBS and 1 mL of sterile singlestrength LTB in a sterile screw cap bottle or re-sealable dilution water container. Inoculate the 1% LTB using a small amount of growth from the stock culture. Disperse the inoculum by vigorously shaking the broth culture and incubate at 35°C ± 3°C for 20 ± 4 hours. This culture is referred to as the undiluted spiking suspension and shoul d contain approximately 1.0 × 10 7 - 1.0 × 10 8 E. coli colony forming units (CFU) per mL of culture. 14.2.1.3 Mix the undiluted spiking suspension (Section 14.2.1.2) thoroughly by shaking the bottle a minimum of 25 times and prepare a series of dilutions (4 total) in the following manner: 14.2.1.3.1 Dilution "A"—Aseptically transfer 1.0 mL of the undiluted spiking suspension to 99 mL of sterile PBS and mix thoroughly by shaking the bottle a minimum of 25 times. This is spiking suspension dilution "A" and 1 mL contains 10 -2 mL of the original undiluted spiking suspension.

14.2.1.3.2 Dilution "B"—Aseptically transfer 1.0 mL of dilution "A" to 99 mL of sterile PBS and mix thoroughly by shaking the bottle a minimum of 25 times. This is spiking suspension dilution "B" and 1 mL contains 10 -4 mL of the original undiluted spiking suspension.Method 1603

December 2009 18 14.2.1.3.3 Dilution "C"—Aseptically transfer 11.0 mL of dilution "B" to 99 mL of sterile PBS and mix thoroughly by shaking the bottle a minimum of 25 times. This is spiking suspension dilution "C" and 1 mL contains 10 -5 mL of the original undiluted spiking suspension. 14.2.1.3.4 Dilution "D"—Aseptically transfer 11.0 mL of dilution "C" to 99 mL of sterile PBS and mix thoroughly by shaking the bottle a minimum of 25 times. This is spiking suspension dilution "D" and 1 mL contains 10 -6 mL of the original undiluted spiking suspension. 14.2.2 Sample spiking using laboratory-prepared suspensions 14.2.2.1 Add 0.3 mL of the spiking suspension dilution "D" to 100 mL of PBS or appropriate volume of sample and mix thoroughly by shaking the bottle a minimum of 25 times. The volume of undiluted spiking suspension added to each 100 mL sample is 3.0 x 10 -7 mL. Filter the spiked sample and analyze the filter according to the procedures in Section 11. 14.2.3 Enumeration of laboratory-prepared spiking suspension 14.2.3.1 Prepare trypticase soy agar (TSA) spread plates, in triplicate, for spiking suspension dilutions "B", "C", and "D". Note : Agar plates must be dry prior to use. To ensure that the agar surface is dry, plates should be made several days in advance and stored inverted at room temperature or dried using a laminar-flow hood. 14.2.3.2 Mix dilution "B" by shaking the bottle a minimum of 25 times. Pipet 0.1 mL of dilution "B" onto the surface of each TSA plate in triplicate. 14.2.3.3 Mix dilution "C" by shaking the bottle a minimum of 25 times. Pipet 0.1 mL of dilution "C" onto the surface of each TSA plate in triplicate. 14.2.3.4 Mix dilution "D" by shaking the bottle a minimum of 25 times. Pipet 0.1 mL of dilution "D" onto the surface of each TSA plate in triplicate. 14.2.3.5 Use a sterile bent glass rod or spreader to distribute the inoculum over the surface of plates by rotating the dish by hand or on a turntable. Note : Ensure that the inoculum is evenly distributed over the entire surface of the plate. 14.2.3.6 Allow the inoculum to absorb into the medium of each plate completely. Invert plates and incubate at 35°C ± 0.5°C for 20 ± 4 hours. 14.2.3.7 Count and record number of colonies per plate. Refer to Section 14.2.4 for calculation of E. coli concentration in the undiluted spiking suspension. The number of E. coli (CFU / mL) in the undiluted spiking suspension will be calculated using all TSA plates yielding counts within the countable range of 30 to 300 CFU per plate.Method 1603

December 2009 19 14.2.4 Recovery calculations for samples spik ed with laboratory-prepared spiking suspensions 14.2.4.1 Calculate the concentration of E. coli (CFU / mL) in the undiluted spiking suspension (Section 14.2.1.2) according to the following equation. Example calculations are provided in Table 4 , below.

E. coli undiluted spike= (CFU1 + CFU2 + ...+ CFUn) / (V1 + V2 + ... + Vn) E. coli undiluted spike = E. coli (CFU / mL) in undiluted spiking suspension Where, CFU = Number of colony forming units from TSA plates yielding counts within the countable range of 30 to 300 CFU per plate V = Volume of undiluted sample on each TSA plate yielding counts within the countable range of 30 to 300 CFU per plate n = Number of plates with counts within the countable range of 30 to 300 CFU per plate Note : The example calculated numbers provided in the tables below have been rounded at the end of each step for simplification purposes. Generally, rounding should only occur after the final calculation. Table 4. Example Calculations of E. coli Spiking Suspension Concentration Examples CFU / plate (triplicate analyses) from TSA plates in Section 2.2.5 E. coli CFU / mL in undiluted spiking suspension (EC undiluted spike )* 10 -5 mL plates 10 -6 mL plates 10 -7 mL plates

Example 1 TNTC, TNTC, TNTC 94, 106, 89 10, 0, 4 (94+106+89) / (10 -6 +10 -6 +10 -6 ) = 289 / (3.0 x 10 -6 ) = 96,333,333 = 9.6 x 10 7 CFU / mL

Example 2 269, 289, 304 24, 30, 28 0, 2, 0 (269+289+30) / (10 -5 +10 -5 +10 -6 ) = 588 / (2.1 x 10 -5 ) =28,000,000 = 2.8 x 10 7 CFU / mL *EC undiluted spike is calculated using all plates yielding counts within the ideal range of 30 to 300 CFU per plateMethod 1603

December 2009 20 14.2.4.2 Calculate true concentration (CFU / 100 mL) of spiked E. coli (T spiked E. coli ) according to the following equation. Example calculations are provided in Table 5, below. 

### T spiked E. coli 

### = ( E. coli undiluted spike 

### ) x ( V spiked per 100 mL sample 

### ) Where, T spikedE. coli = Number of spikedE. coli (CFU / 100 mL) E. coli undiluted spike = E. coli (CFU / mL) in undiluted spiking suspension V spiked per 100 mL sample= mL of undiluted spiking suspension per 100 mL sample
Table 5. Example Calculations of Spiked E. coli EC undiluted spike V spiked per 100 mL sample T Spiked E. coli

9.6 x 10 7 CFU / mL 3.0 X 10 -7 mL per 100 mL of sample (9.6 x 10 7 CFU / mL) x (3.0 x 10 -7 mL / 100 mL) = 28.8 CFU / 100 mL
2.8 x 10 7 CFU / mL 3.0 X 10 -7 mL per 100 mL of sample (2.8 x 10 7 CFU / mL) x (3.0 x 10 -7 mL / 100 mL) = 8.4 CFU / 100 mL

14.2.4.3 Calculate percent recovery (R) of spiked E. coli (CFU / 100 mL) according to the following equation. Example calculations are provided in Table 6, below.



## R = 100 x (N s 

## - N u 

## ) T Where, R = Percent recovery N s = E. coli (CFU / 100 mL) in the spiked sample (Section 13) N u = E. coli (CFU / 100 mL) in the unspiked sample (Section 13) T = True spiked E. coli (CFU / 100 mL) in spiked sample (Section 14.2.4.2)Method 1603

December 2009 21 Table 6. Example Percent Recovery Calculations N s (CFU / 100 mL) N u (CFU / 100 mL) T (CFU / 100 mL) Percent recovery (R)

42 <1 28.8 100 x (42 - 1) / 28.8

= 142%

34 10 28.8 100 x (34 - 10) / 28.8

= 83%

16 <1 8.4 100 x (16 - 1) / 8.4

= 179%

10 <1 8.4 100 x (10 - 1) / 8.4 = 107%

14.3 BioBallTM Spiking Procedure 14.3.1 Aseptically add 1 BioBallTM to 100 mL (or appropriate volume) of sample and mix by vigorously shaking the sample bottle a minimum of 25 times. Analyze the spiked sample according to the procedures in Section 11. 14.3.2 Recovery calculations for samples spiked withBioBalls—Calculate percent recovery (R) of spiked E. coli (CFU / 100 mL) according to the following equation. Example calculations are provided in Table 7 , below.



## R = 100 x (N s 

## - N u 

## ) T Where, R = Percent recovery N s = E. coli (CFU / 100 mL) in the spiked sample (Section 13) N u = E. coli (CFU / 100 mL) in the unspiked sample (Section 13) T = True spiked E. coli (CFU / 100 mL) in spiked sample based on the lot mean value provided by manufacturer Table 7. Example Percent Recovery Calculations

N s (CFU / 100 mL) N u (CFU / 100 mL) T (CFU / 100 mL) Percent recovery (R) 24 <1 32 100 × (24 - 1) / 32 = 72%

36 10 32 100 × (36 - 10) / 32 = 81%Method 1603

December 2009 22 

## 15.0 Method Performance 15.1 Performance Characteristics (Reference 18.6) 15.1.1 Precision – The degree of agreement of repeated measurements of the same parameter expressed quantitatively as the standard devia tion or as the 95% confidence limits of the mean computed from the results of a series of controlled determinations. The modified mTEC method precision was found to be fairly representative of what would be expected from counts with a Poisson distribution. 15.1.2 Bias – The persistent positive or negative devi ation of the average value of the method from the assumed or accepted true value. The bias of the modified mTEC method has been reported to be -2% of the true value. 15.1.3 Specificity – The ability of a method to select and or distinguish the target bacteria under test from other bacteria in the same water sam ple. The specificity characteristic of a method is usually reported as the percent of false positive and false negative results. The false positive rate reported for modified mTEC medium averaged 6% for marine and fresh water samples. Five percent of the E. coli colonies observed gave a false negative reaction. 15.1.4 Upper Counting Limit (UCL) – That colony count above which there is an unacceptable counting error. The error may be due to overcrowding or antibiosis. The UCL for E. coli on modified mTEC medium has been reported as 80 colonies per filter. 15.2 Interlaboratory validation of Method 1603 in disinfected wastewater (Reference 18.2) 15.2.1 Eight volunteer laboratories, an E. coli verification laboratory, and a research laboratory participated in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) interlaboratory validation study of EPA Method 1603. The purposes of the study were to characterize method performance across multiple laboratories and disinfected wastewater matrices and to develop quantitative quality control (QC) acceptance criteria. A detailed description of the of the study and results are provided in the validation study report (Reference 18.2). Results submitted by laboratories were validatedusing a standardized data review process to confirm that results were generated in accordance with study-specific instructions and the September 2002 version of EPA Method 1603. 15.2.2 Recovery - Method 1603 was characterized by mean laboratory-specific recoveries of E. coli from disinfected wastewater samples spikedwith laboratory-prepared spikes ranging from 47.8% to 106%, with an overall mean recovery of 80.7%. For PBS samples spiked with laboratory spiking suspensions, mean laboratory-specific recoveries ranged from 70.7% to 109.7%, with an overall mean recovery of 82.9%. 15.2.3 Precision - Method 1603 was characterized by laboratory-specific relative standard deviations (RSDs) from disinfected wastewater samples spiked with laboratory-prepared spikes ranging from 6.1% to 51.4%, with an overall pooled, within-laboratory RSD of 25.9%. For PBS samples spiked with laboratory-prepared spiking suspensions, laboratory-specific RSDs ranged from 7.7% to 29.6%, with an overall pooled, withinlaboratory RSD of 19.6%.Method 1603

December 2009 23 15.2.4 False positive rates - Method 1603 laboratory-specific false positive rates determined from all unspiked disinfected and secondary results combined, ranged from 0% - 6.7%. For secondary wastewater (excluding disinfected results), only one of 41 typical colonies submitted to verification was non- E. coli , resulting in a false positive rate of 2.4%. For disinfected wastewater (excluding secondary results), only one of 67 typical colonies submitted to verification was non- E. coli , resulting in a false positive rate of 1.5%. Since all 785 typical colonies observed during the study could not be submitted to confirmation, the percent of total colonies that would have resulted in a false positive result was estimated (see Table 6, Reference 18.2). It is estimated that 0.6% and 1.4% of the total colonies would have resulted in a false positive for disinfected wastewater and secondary wastewater, respectively. 15.2.5 False negative rates - Method 1603 laboratory-specific false negative rates determined from all unspiked disinfected and secondary results combined, also ranged from 0% - 6.7%. For secondary wastewater (excluding disinfected results), two of 33 atypical colonies submitted to verification were identified as E. coli , resulting in a false negative rate of 6.1%. For disinfected wastewater (excluding secondary results), three of 75 atypical colonies submitted to verification were identified as E. coli , resulting in a false negative rate of 4.0%. Since all 732 atypi cal colonies observed during the study could not be submitted to confirmation, the percent of total colonies that would have resulted in a false negative result was estimated. It is es timated that 2.5% and 2.6% of the total colonies would have resulted in a false negative for disinfected wastewater and secondary wastewater, respectively. The false positive and negative assessments are provided in Table 8

. Table 8. False Positive and False Negative Assessment for Unspiked Disinfected and Unspiked Secondary Wastewater Effluents

Matrix Total colonies False positive (FP) assessment False negative (FN) assessment

Typical Atypical Typical colonies submitted No. FP colonies FP confirmation

rate (%) a Estimated % of total colonies that would have been

a FP b Atypical colonies submitted No. FN colonies FN confirmation

rate (%) c Estimated % of total colonies that would have been a FN d

Disinfected 163 263 67 1 1.5% 0.6% 75 3 4.0% 2.5%

Secondary 622 469 41 1 2.4% 1.4% 33 2 6.1% 2.6%

Disinfected &

Secondary 785 732 108 2 1.9% 1.0% 108 5 4.6% 2.2%

a False positive confirmation rate = num ber of false positive colonies / num ber of typical colonies submitted b Percent of total colonies estimated to be false positives = [(total typical colonies × FP confirmation rate) / (total number of typical and atypical colonies observ ed)] × 100; e.g., [(622 ×(1/41))/(622+469)] × 100 = 1.4% cFalse negative confirmation rate = num ber of false negative colonies / number of atypical colonies submitted d Percent of total colonies estimated to be false negatives = [(total atypical colonies × FN confirmation rate) / (total number of typical and atypical colonies observ ed)] × 100; e.g., [(469 ×(2/ 33))/(622+469)] × 100 = 2.6% 

## 16.0 Pollution Prevention 16.1 The solutions and reagents used in this method pose little threat to the environment when recycled and managed properly.Method 1603

December 2009 24 16.2 Solutions and reagents should be prepared in vol umes consistent with laboratory use to minimize the volume of expired materials to be disposed. 

## 17.0 Waste Management 17.1 It is the laboratory's responsibility to comply with all federal, state, and local regulations governing waste management, particularly the bi ohazard and hazardous waste identification rules and land disposal restrictions, and to protect the air, water, and land by minimizing and controlling all releases from fume hoods and bench operations. Compliance with all sewage discharge permits and regulations is also required. 17.2 Samples, reference materials, and equipment known or suspected to have viable E. coli attached or contained must be sterilized prior to disposal. 17.3 Samples preserved with HCl to pH <2 are hazar dous and must be neutralized before being disposed, or must be handled as hazardous waste. 17.4 For further information on waste management, consult “The Waste Management Manual for Laboratory Personnel” and “Less Is Better: La boratory Chemical Management for Waste Reduction,” both available from the American Chemical Society's Department of Government Relations and Science Policy, 1155 16th Street NW, Washington, DC 20036. 

## 18.0 References 18.1 Dufour, A.P. Health Effects Criteria for Fresh Recreational Waters , EPA-600/1-84-004. Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1984. 18.2 USEPA. 2004. Results of the Interlaboratory Validation of EPA Method 1603 (modified mTEC) for E. coli in Wastewater Effluent . EPA-821-R-04-009. December 2004. 18.3 ACS. 2000. Reagent Chemicals, American Ch emical Society Specifications . American Chemical Society, New York. For suggestions of the testing of reagents not listed by the American Chemical Society, see AnalaR Standards for Laboratory Chemicals , BDH, Poole, Dorset, UK and the United States Pharmacopeia. 18.4 APHA. 1998. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater . 20th Edition. American Public Health Association, Washington D.C. 18.5 Bordner, R., J.A. Winter, and P.V. Scarpino (eds.). Microbiological Methods for Monitoring the Environment: Water and Wastes , EPA-600/8-78-017. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1978. 18.6 Smith, B. G. and A. P. Dufour. 1997. A Modified mTEC Medium for Monitoring Recreational Waters . American Society for Microbiology General Meeting, Miami Beach, FL, May 1997.

## Appendix A: Part II (General Operations), Section A (Sample Collection, Preservation, and Storage)

### Sample Collection 1 1.0 Sample Containers 1.1 Sample Bottles: bottles must be resistant to sterilizing conditions and the solvent action of water. Wide-mouth borosilicate glass bottles with screw-cap or ground-glass stopper or heat-resistant plastic bottles may be used if they can be sterilized without producing toxic materials (see examples A and C in Figure 1). Screw-caps must not produce bacteriostatic or nutritive compounds upon sterilization.

Figure 1. Suggested sample containers. 1.2 Selection and Cleaning of Bottles: Samples bottles should be at least 125 mL volume for adequate sampling and for good mixing. Bottles of 250 mL, 500 mL, and 1000 mL volume are often used for multiple analyses. Discard bottles which have chips, cracks, and etched surfaces. Bottle closures must be water-tight. Before use, thoroughly cleanse bottles and closures with detergent and hot water, followed by a hot water rinse to remove all trace of detergent. Then rinse them three times with laboratory-pure water. 1.3 Dechlorinating Agent: The agent must be placed in the bottle when water and wastewater samples containing residual chlorine are anticipated. Add sodium thiosulfate to the bottle before sterilization at a concentration of 0.1 mL of a 10% solution for each 125 mL sample volume. This concentration will neutralize approximately 15 mg/L of residue chlorine. 1.4 Chelating Agent: A chelating agent should be added to sample bottles used to collect samples suspected of containing >0.01 mg/L concentrations of heavy metals such as copper, nickel or zinc, etc. Add 0.3 mL of a 15% solution of ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) tetrasodium salt, for each 125 mL sample volume prior to sterilization.

1 The text is taken from Part II, Section A, of the EPA publication "Microbiological Methods for Monitoring the Environment" EPA-600/8-78-017, December 1978. 

### 11.5 Wrapping Bottles: Protect the tops and necks of glass stoppered bottles from contamination by covering them before sterilization with aluminum foil or kraft paper. 1.6 Sterilization of Bottles: Autoclave glass or heat-resistant plastic bottles at 121°C for 15 minutes. Alternatively, dry glassware may be sterilized in a hot oven at 170°C for not less than two hours. Ethylene oxide gas sterilization is acceptable for plastic containers that are not heat-resistant. Sample bottles sterilized by gas should be stored overnight before being used to allow the last traces of gas to dissipate. 1.7 Plastic Bags: The commercially available bags (Whirl-pak) (see example B in Figure 1) are a practical substitute for plastic or glass samples bottles in sampling soil, sediment, or biosolids. The bags are sealed in manufacture and opened only at time of sampling. The manufacturer states that such bags are sterilized. 2.0 Sampling Techniques Samples are collected by hand or with a sampling device if the sampling site has difficult access such as a bridge or bank adjacent to a surface water. 2.1 Chlorinated Samples: When samples such as treated waters, chlorinated wastewaters or recreational waters are collected, the sample bottle must contain a dechlorinating agent (see section 1.3 above). 2.2 Composite Sampling: In no case should a composite sample be collected for bacteriologic examination. Data from individual samples show a range of values. A composite sample will not display this range. Individual results will give information about industrial process variations in flow and composition. Also, one or more portions that make up a composite sample may contain toxic or nutritive materials and cause erroneous results. 2.3 Surface Sampling by Hand: A grab sample is obtained using a sample bottle prepared as described in (1) above. Identify the sampling site on the bottle label and on a field log sheet. Remove the bottle covering and closure and protect from contamination. Grasp the bottle at the base with one hand and plunge the bottle mouth down into the water to avoid introducing surface scum (Figure 2). Position the mouth of the bottle into the current away from the hand of the collector and, if applicable, away from the side of the sampling platform. The sampling depth should be 15-30 cm (6-12 inches) below the water surface. If the water body is static, an artificial current can be created, by moving the bottle horizontally in the direction it is pointed and away from the sampler. Tip the bottle slightly upwards to allow air to exit and the bottle to fill. After removal of the bottle from the stream, pour out a small portion of the sample to allow an air space of 2.5-5 cm (1-2 inches) above each sample for proper mixing of the sample before analyses. Tightly stopper the bottle and place on ice (do not freeze) for transport to the laboratory.



### 2Figure 2. Grab sampling technique for surface waters.

3.0 Selection of Sampling Sites and Frequency These will be described for streams, rivers, estuarine, marine, and recreational waters as well as domestic and industrial wastewaters. 3.1 Stream Sampling: The objectives of the initial survey dictate the location, frequency and number of samples to be collected. 3.1.1 Selection of Sampling Sites: A typical stream sampling program includes sampling locations upstream of the area of concern, upstream and downstream of waste discharges, upstream and downstream from tributary entrances to the river and upstream of the mouth of the tributary. For more complex situations, where several waste discharges are involved, sampling includes sites upstream and downstream from the combined discharge area and samples taken directly from each industrial or municipal waste discharge. Using available bacteriological, chemical and discharge rate data, the contribution of each pollution source can be determined. 3.1.2 Small Streams: Small streams should be sampled at background stations upstream of the pollution sources and at stations downstream from pollution sources. Additional sampling sites should be located downstream to delineate the zones of pollution. Avoid sampling areas where stagnation may occur (e.g., backwater of a tributary) and areas located near the inside bank of a curve in the stream which may not be representative of the main channel.



### 33.1.3 Large Streams and Rivers: Large streams are usually not well mixed laterally for long distances downstream from the pollution sources. Sampling sites below point source pollution should be established to provide desired downstream travel time and dispersal as determined by flow rate measurements. Particular care must be taken to establish the proper sampling points. Occasionally, depth samples are necessary to determine vertical mixing patterns. 3.2 Estuarine and Marine Sampling : Sampling estuarine and marine waters requires the consideration of other factors in addition to those usually recognized in fresh water sampling. They include tidal cycles, current patterns, bottom currents and counter-currents, stratification, seasonal fluctuations, dispersion of discharges and multi-depth samplings. The frequency of sampling varies with the objectives. When a sampling program is started, it may be necessary to sample every hour around the clock to establish pollution loads and dispersion patterns. The sewage discharges may occur continuously or intermittently. When the sampling strategy for a survey is planned, data may be available from previous hydrological studies done by the Coast Guard, Corps of Engineers, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), U.S. Geological Survey, or university and private research investigations. In a survey, float studies and dye studies are often carried out to determine surface and undercurrents. Initially depth samples are taken on the bottom and at five feet increments between surface and bottom. A random grid pattern for selecting sampling sites is established statistically. 3.2.1 Estuarine Sampling: When a survey is made on an estuary, samples are often taken from a boat, usually making an end to end traverse of the estuary. Another method involves taking samples throughout a tidal cycle, every hour or two hours from a bridge or from an anchored boat at a number of fixed points. In a large bay or estuary where many square miles of area are involved, a grid or series of stations may be necessary. Two sets of samples are usually taken from an area on a given day, one at ebb or flood slack water, and the other three hours earlier, or later, at the half tidal interval. Sampling is scheduled so that the mid-sampling time of each run coincides with the calculated occurrence of the tidal condition. In location sampling sites, one must consider points at which tributary waters enter the main stream or estuary, location of shellfish beds and bathing beaches. The sampling stations can be adjusted as data accumulate. For example, if a series of stations half mile apart consistently show similar values, some of these stations may be dropped and other stations added in areas where data shows more variability. Considerable stratification can occur between the salt water from the sea and the fresh water supplied by a river. It is essential when starting a survey of an unknown estuary to find out whether there is any marked stratification. This can be done by chloride determinations at different locations and depths. It is possible for stratification to occur in one part of an estuary and not in another.



### 4On a flood tide, the more dense salt water pushing up into the less dense fresh river water will cause an overlapping with the fresh water flowing on top. A phenomenon called a salt water wedge can form. As a result, stratification occurs. If the discharge of pollution is in the salt water layer, the contamination will be concentrated near the bottom at the flood tide. The flow or velocity of the fresh water will influence the degree of stratification which occurs. If one is sampling only at the surface, it is possible that the data will not show the polluted underflowing water which was contaminated at the point below the fresh water river. Therefore, where stratification is suspected, samples at different depths will be needed to measure vertical distribution. 3.2.2 Marine Sampling: In ocean studies, the environmental conditions are most diverse along the coast where shore, atmosphere and the surf are strong influences. The shallow coastal waters are particularly susceptible to daily fluctuations in temperature and seasonal changes. Sampling during the entire tidal cycle or during a half cycle may be required. Many ocean studies such as sampling over the continental shelf involve huge areas and no two areas of water are the same. Selection of sampling sites and depths are most critical in marine waters. In winter, cooling of coastal waters can result in water layers which approach 0°C. In summer, the shallow waters warm much faster than the deeper waters. Despite the higher temperature, oxygen concentrations are higher in shallow than in deeper waters due to greater water movement, surf action and photosynthetic activity from macrophytes and the plankton. Moving from the shallow waters to the intermediate depths, one observes a moderation of these shallow water characteristics. In the deeper waters, there is a marked stabilization of conditions. Water temperatures are lower and more stable. There is limited turbulence, little penetration of light, sparse vegetation and the ocean floor is covered with a layer of silts and sediments. 3.3 Recreational Waters (Bathing Beaches): Sampling sites at bathing beaches or other recreational areas should include upstream or peripheral areas and locations adjacent to natural drains that would discharge stormwater, or run-off areas draining septic wastes from restaurants, boat marinas, or garbage collection areas. Samples of bathing beach water should be collected at locations and times of heaviest use. Daily sampling, preferably in the afternoon, is the optimum frequency during the season. Weekends and holidays which are periods of highest use must be included in the sampling program. Samples of estuarine bathing waters should be obtained at high tide, ebb tide and low tide in order to determine the cyclic water quality and deterioration that must be monitored during the swimming season.



### 53.4 Domestic and Industrial Waste Discharges: It is often necessary to sample secondary and tertiary wastes from municipal waste treatment plants and various industrial waste treatment operations. In situations where the plant treatment efficiency varies considerably, grab samples are collected around the clock at selected intervals for a three to five day period. If it is known that the process displays little variation, fewer samples are needed. In no case should a composite sample be collected for bacteriological examination. The National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) has established wastewater treatment plant effluent limits for all dischargers. These are often based on maximum and mean values. A sufficient number of samples must be collected to satisfy the permit and/or to provide statistically sound data and give a fair representation of the bacteriological quality of the discharge.



### 6

## Appendix B: Part II (General Operations), Sections C.3.5 (Counting Colonies) and C.3.6 (Calculation of Results)

### Counting Colonies 1 1.0 Counting Colonies Colonies should be counted using a fluorescent lamp with a magnifying lens. The flourescent lamp should be nearly perpendicular to the membrane filter. Count colonies individually, even if they are in contact with each other. The technician must learn to recognize the difference between two or more colonies which have grown into contact with each other and single, irregularly shaped colonies which sometimes develop on membrane filters. The latter colonies are usually associated with a fiber or particulate material and the colonies conform to the shape and size of the fiber or particulates. Colonies which have grown together almost invariably show a very fine line of contact. 2.0 Calculation of Results 2.1 Select the membrane filter with the number of colonies in the acceptable range and calculate count per 100 mL according to the general formula: Count per 100 mL = (No. of colonies counted/Volume of sample filtered, in mL) x 100 2.2 Counts Within the Acceptable Limits The acceptable range of colonies that are countable on a membrane is a function of the method. Different methods may have varying acceptable count ranges. All examples in this appemdix assume that the acceptable range of counts is between 20-80 colonies per membrane. For example, assume that filtration of volumes of 50, 15, 5, 1.5, and 0.5 mL produced colony counts of 200, 110, 40, 10, and 5, respectively. An analyst would not actually count the colonies on all filters. By inspection the analyst would select the membrane filter with the acceptable range of target colonies, as defined by the method, and then limit the actual counting to such membranes. After selecting the best membrane filter for counting, the analyst counts colonies and applies the general formula as in section 2.1 above to calculate the count/100 mL. 2.3 More Than One Acceptable Count 2.3.1 If there are acceptable counts on replicate plates, carry counts independently to final reporting units, then calculate the arithmetic mean of these counts to obtain the final reporting value.

1 The text is largely taken from Part II, Section C, of the EPA publication "Microbiological Methods for Monitoring the Environment" EPA-600/8-78-017, December 1978. Some examples were kindly provided by Kristen Brenner, US EPA. 

### 1Example, if the counts are 24 and 36 for replicate plates of 100 mL each, then the arithmetic mean is calculated as follows: (24 CFU/100 mL + 36 CFU/100 mL) = 30 CFU/ 100 mL 2 2.3.2 If there is more than one dilution having an acceptable range of counts, independently carry counts to final reporting units, then average for final reported value. For example, if volumes of 100, 10, 1 and 0.1 mL produced colony counts of Too Numerous To Count (TNTC), 75, 30, and 1, respectively, then two volumes, 10 mL and 1 mL, produced colonies in the acceptable counting range. Independently carry each MF count to a count per 100 mL:

75 × 100 = 750 CFU /100 mL 10 and

30 × 100 = 3000 CFU /100 mL 1

Calculate the arithmetic mean as in section 2.3.1 above: (750 CFU/100 mL + 3000 CFU/100 mL) = 1875 CFU/100 mL 2 Report this as 1875 CFU/100 mL.

2.4 If all MF counts are below the lower acceptable count limit, select the most nearly acceptable count. 2.4.1 For example, sample volumes of 100, 10 and 1 mL produced colony counts of 17, 1 and 0, respectively. Here, no colony count falls within recommended limits. Calculate on the basis of the most nearly acceptable plate count, 17, and report as 17 CFU/100 mL. Notethat in this case, because no calculations were done (i.e. this is the count for 100 mL), the count is reported as 17 CFU/100 mL rather than an “estimated count of 17 CFU/100 mL”



### 22.4.2 As a second example, assume a count in which sample volumes of 10 and 1 mL produced colony counts of 18 and 0, respectively. Here, no colony count falls within recommended limits. Calculate on the basis of the most nearly acceptable plate count, 18, and calculate as in section 2.3.2 above.

18 × 100 = 180 CFU /100 mL 10
Report this as an estimated count of 180 CFU/100 mL. 2.5 If counts from all membranes are zero, calculate using count from largest filtration volume. For example, sample volumes of 25, 10, and 2 mL produced colony counts of 0, 0, and 0, respectively, and no actual calculation is possible, even as an estimated report. Calculate the number of colonies per 100 mL that would have been reported if there had been one colony on the filter representing the largest filtration volume. In this example, the largest volume filtered was 25 mL and thus the calculation would be:

1 × 100 = 4 CFU /100 mL 25 Report this as < (less than) 4 CFU/100 mL. 2.6 If all membrane counts are above the upper acceptable limit, calculate count using the smallest volume filtered. For example, assume that the volumes 1, 0.3, and 0.01 mL produced colony counts of TNTC, 150, and 110 colonies, respectively. Since all colony counts are above the acceptable limit, use the colony count from the smallest sample volume filtered and estimate the count as:

110 × 100 = 1,100,000 CFU /100 mL 0.01

Report this as estimated count 1.1 × 10 6 CFU/100 mL 2.7 If typical colonies are too numerous to count (TNTC), use upper limit count with smallest filtration volume.



### 3For example, assume that the volumes 1, 0.3, and 0.01 mL all produced too many typical colonies, and that the laboratory bench record indicated TNTC. Use the upper acceptable count for the method (80 colonies in this example) as the basis of calculation with the smallest filtration volume and estimate the count as:

80 × 100 = 800,000 CFU /100 mL 0.01 Report this as > (greater than) 8 ×10 5 CFU/100 mL 2.8 If colonies are both above and below the upper and lower acceptable limits (i.e., no counts are within the acceptable limits), select the most nearly acceptable count. 2.8.1 For example, sample volumes of 100, 10 and 1 mL produced colony counts of 84, 8 and 0, respectively. Here, no colony count falls within recommended limits. Calculate on the basis of the most nearly acceptable plate count, 84, and report as 84 CFU/100 mL. Notethat in this case, because no calculations were done (i.e. this is the count for 100 mL), the count is reported as 84 CFU/100 mL rather than an “estimated count of 84 CFU/100 mL” 2.8.2 As a second example, assume a count in which sample volumes of 100, 10 and 1 mL produced colony counts of 98, 18, and 0, respectively. Here, no colony count falls within recommended limits. Calculate on the basis of the most nearly acceptable plate count, 18, and calculate as in section 2.3.2 above.

18 × 100 = 180 CFU /100 mL 10 Report this as estimated count 180 CFU/100 mL. 2.9 If there is no result because of a confluent growth, > 200 atypical colonies (TNTC), lab accident, etc., report as No Data and specify the reason.



### 4