Study Report
ATP Case Number D11-0005
Originally Submitted June 12, 2013
Revised January 30, 2014
1
ENDETEC Method - ATP Case D11-0005
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 ENDETEC™ 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). ENDETEC™ 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 ENDETEC™ 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 ENDETEC™ 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.
2
ENDETEC Method - ATP Case D11-0005
Method Summary:
The Proposed Method (ENDETEC™) 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, non-
selective nutritive components support the growth of target organisms, and
antimicrobial agents in the test medium suppress the growth of non-target
bacteria.
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.
3
ENDETEC Method - ATP Case D11-0005
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
ENDETEC™ as the proposed method and LTB (SM9221B), with BGLB
confirmation for total coliforms (TC), and LTB with confirmation using EC-
MUG (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.
4
ENDETEC Method - ATP Case D11-0005
Type of Study:
The study was a side-by-side method comparison comparing the ENDETEC™
method with SM9221B and SM9221F, US EPA-approved methods, to
determine if the performance of the ENDETEC™ 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.
5
ENDETEC Method - ATP Case D11-0005
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 Filter™ SAFF-100)
designed to remove residual disinfectant. Filtering of water through the
carbon filter commenced on March 8.
6
ENDETEC Method - ATP Case D11-0005
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)
Concentration (mg/L) or
Analyte Data Value
4.01
Total chlorine
32.43
Sulfate
201
Hardness
187
Alkalinity
0.007
Copper
0.26
Ammonia
26
Chloride
7
ENDETEC Method - ATP Case D11-0005
This procedure is consistent with that described in the approved ATP study
plan.
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
8
ENDETEC Method - ATP Case D11-0005
tap water, even after standing for a period of 48 hours, residual disinfectant
activity was found.
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 ENDETEC™ medium
with different levels of organisms. The results are shown in Table 4.
9
ENDETEC Method - ATP Case D11-0005
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 TECTA™ 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 TECTA™ 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.
10
ENDETEC Method - ATP Case D11-0005
organisms is shown in Table 5. All log reductions were in the ranges required
by the approved ATP study plan.
Chlorine Time
added to Initial between
achieve Target count of disinfection
Date disinfection concentration diluted and
Analysis target Log per 100 ml sample analysis
started Site (mg/L) reduction sample (cfu) (MPN/ml) (hours)
2-1-13 South Cross 10.0 2.27 EC 4.7 5794 24
South 8.8
2-6-13 Burlington 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
South 10.0
3-21-13 Burlington 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
Downer’s 3.8
4-20-13 Grove 2.02 EC 2.0 209.8 24
South 8.8 19863 48
4-21-13 Burlington 3.16 TC 3.4
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
11
ENDETEC Method - ATP Case D11-0005
5. Results
The results of the side by side comparison for each sample run are shown in
Appendix C, Tables C1-C31.
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
ENDETEC™ system. These data were obtained during the side by side
comparison part of the study and reflect only the ENDETEC™ negatives
obtained during this phase.
13
ENDETEC Method - ATP Case D11-0005
Table 7. The number of true and false positive Total Coliform results
obtained with the ENDETEC™ method from additional samples run purely
for negatives
Using the data for the additional samples run to generate more ENDETEC™
negative samples:
By calculation False Positive Rate is 1.5% and False Negative Rate is
0%
Table 8. Combined summary of total coliform data from the side by side
comparison and from the additional samples run to obtain additional
negatives
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%
14
ENDETEC Method - ATP Case D11-0005
Again, the recovery of E. coli using the ENDETEC™ method was significantly
higher than with SM 9221B (176%). Recovery by ENDETEC™ 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 ENDETEC™
system. These data were obtained during the side by side comparison part of
the study and reflect only the ENDETEC™ negatives obtained during this
phase.
15
ENDETEC Method - ATP Case D11-0005
Table 10. The number of true and false positive E. coli results obtained with
the ENDETEC™ 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
16
ENDETEC Method - ATP Case D11-0005
Table 11. Combined summary of E. coli data from the side by side
comparison and from the additional samples run to obtain additional
negatives
Combining the data from both sets of samples (those used for the side by
side and those used to generate additional negative samples):
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 ENDETEC™ 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 ENDETEC™ 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 ENDETEC™ 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
17
ENDETEC Method - ATP Case D11-0005
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
ENDETEC™ 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 ENDETEC™ 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 ENDETEC™ method was significantly greater than that of the
reference method as indicated by the substantially higher recovery of both
groups of target organisms.
18
ENDETEC Method - ATP Case D11-0005
Conclusions
The results presented here have demonstrated that the ENDETEC™ 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
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
19
ENDETEC Method - ATP Case D11-0005
20
ENDETEC Method - ATP Case D11-0005
21
ENDETEC Method - ATP Case D11-0005
Table C1. Total Coliform Results from Chattanooga, TN Log Reduction Value (LRV) =
2.37
EC-
Unit Chamber Site MUG 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
22
ENDETEC Method - ATP Case D11-0005
Table C2. Total Coliform Results from Iowa City, IA Log Reduction Value (LRV) = 3.0
EC-
Unit Chamber Site MUG 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
23
ENDETEC Method - ATP Case D11-0005
Table C3. Total Coliform Results from Raleigh, NC Log Reduction Value (LRV) = 2.16
EC-
Unit Chamber Site MUG 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
24
ENDETEC Method - ATP Case D11-0005
Table C4. Total Coliform Results from Pennridge, PA Log Reduction Value (LRV) =
2.25
EC-
Unit Chamber Site MUG 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
25
ENDETEC Method - ATP Case D11-0005
Table C5. Total Coliform Results from Las Cruces, NM Log Reduction Value (LRV) =
2.25
EC-
Unit Chamber Site MUG 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
26
ENDETEC Method - ATP Case D11-0005
Table C6. Total Coliform Results from Palm Harbor, FL Log Reduction Value (LRV) =
2.22
EC-
Unit Chamber Site MUG 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
27
ENDETEC Method - ATP Case D11-0005
Table C7. Total Coliform Results from San Diego, CA Log Reduction Value (LRV) =
3.06
EC-
Unit Chamber Site MUG 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
28
ENDETEC Method - ATP Case D11-0005
Table C8. Total Coliform Results from Penn Yann, NY Log Reduction Value (LRV) =
2.30
EC-
Unit Chamber Site MUG 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
29
ENDETEC Method - ATP Case D11-0005
Table C9. Total Coliform Results from South Burlington, VT Log Reduction Value
(LRV) = 2.37
EC-
Unit Chamber Site MUG 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
30
ENDETEC Method - ATP Case D11-0005
Table C10. Total Coliform Results from Valley Forge, PA Log Reduction Value (LRV)
= 2.73
EC-
Unit Chamber Site MUG 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
31
ENDETEC Method - ATP Case D11-0005
Table C11. E. coli Results from South Cross Bayou, FL Log Reduction Value (LRV) =
2.27
EC-
Unit Chamber Site MUG 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
32
ENDETEC Method - ATP Case D11-0005
Table C12. E. coli Results from South Burlington, VT Log Reduction Value (LRV) =
2.25
EC-
Unit Chamber Site MUG 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
33
ENDETEC Method - ATP Case D11-0005
Table C13. E. coli Results from Las Cruces, NM Log Reduction Value (LRV) = 2.03
EC-
Unit Chamber Site MUG 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
34
ENDETEC Method - ATP Case D11-0005
Table C14. E. coli Results from Pennridge, PA Log Reduction Value (LRV) = 2.04
EC-
Unit Chamber Site MUG 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
35
ENDETEC Method - ATP Case D11-0005
Table C15. E. coli Results from Palm Harbor, FL Log Reduction Value (LRV) = 2.09
EC-
Unit Chamber Site MUG 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
36
ENDETEC Method - ATP Case D11-0005
Table C16. E. coli Results from San Diego, CA Log Reduction Value (LRV) = 2.09
EC-
Unit Chamber Site MUG 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
37
ENDETEC Method - ATP Case D11-0005
Table C17. E. coli Results from Iowa City, IA Log Reduction Value (LRV) = 2.19
EC-
Unit Chamber Site MUG 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
38
ENDETEC Method - ATP Case D11-0005
Table C18. E. coli Results from Denton, TX Log Reduction Value (LRV) = 2.15
EC-
Unit Chamber Site MUG 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
39
ENDETEC Method - ATP Case D11-0005
Table C19. E. coli Results from Valley Forge, PA Log Reduction Value (LRV) = 2.29
EC-
Unit Chamber Site MUG 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
40
ENDETEC Method - ATP Case D11-0005
Table C20. E. coli Results from Downers Grove, IL Log Reduction Value (LRV) = 2.02
EC-
Unit Chamber Site MUG 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
41
ENDETEC Method - ATP Case D11-0005
Table C21.Total Coliform Results from San Diego, CA to obtain more results where
ENDETEC was negative Log Reduction Value (LRV) = 3.06
EC-
Unit Chamber Site MUG 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
42
ENDETEC Method - ATP Case D11-0005
Table C22.Total Coliform Results from Denton, TX to obtain more results where
ENDETEC was negative Log Reduction Value (LRV) = 2.44
EC-
Unit Chamber Site MUG 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
43
ENDETEC Method - ATP Case D11-0005
Table C23.Total Coliform Results from South Burlington, VT to obtain more results
where ENDETEC was negative Log Reduction Value (LRV) = 3.16
EC-
Unit Chamber Site MUG 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
44
ENDETEC Method - ATP Case D11-0005
Table C24.Total Coliform Results from Palm Harbor, FL to obtain more results
where ENDETEC was negative Log Reduction Value (LRV) = 3.41
EC-
Unit Chamber Site MUG 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
45
ENDETEC Method - ATP Case D11-0005
Table C25.E. coli Results from Las Cruces, NM to obtain more results where
ENDETEC was negative Log Reduction Value (LRV) =
EC-
Unit Chamber Site MUG 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
46
ENDETEC Method - ATP Case D11-0005
Table C26. E. coli Results from Las Cruces, NM to obtain more results where
ENDETEC was negative Log Reduction Value (LRV) =
EC-
Unit Chamber Site MUG 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
47
ENDETEC Method - ATP Case D11-0005
Table C27. E. coli Results from Palm Harbor, FL to obtain more results where
ENDETEC was negative Log Reduction Value (LRV) = 2.14
EC-
Unit Chamber Site MUG 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
48
ENDETEC Method - ATP Case D11-0005
Table C28. E. coli Results from Iowa City, IA to obtain more results where ENDETEC
was negative Log Reduction Value (LRV) = 2.88
EC-
Unit Chamber Site MUG 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
49
ENDETEC Method - ATP Case D11-0005
Table C29. E. coli Results from Valley Forge, PA to obtain more results where
ENDETEC was negative Log Reduction Value (LRV) = 2.15
EC-
Unit Chamber Site MUG 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
50
ENDETEC Method - ATP Case D11-0005
Table C30. E. coli Results from Valley Forge, PA to obtain more results where
ENDETEC was negative Log Reduction Value (LRV) = 2.15
EC-
Unit Chamber Site MUG 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
51
ENDETEC Method - ATP Case D11-0005
Table C31. E. coli Results from San Diego, CA to obtain more results where
ENDETEC was negative Log Reduction Value (LRV) = 2.14
EC-
Unit Chamber Site MUG 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
52